Parties: Ted Chimel (Plaintiff) v. The State of California (Defendant) Facts: The Police Officers arrived at the Plaintiff’s house with an arrest warrant for the alleged crime he had committed. The Plaintiff was not at home and his spouse let them in until Chimel return. Upon the Plaintiff entering the house, the police arrested him and request permission to search the house. The Plaintiff denied the request to search the house, but the police officers proceeded to search the house. They found coins which were stolen and later used to convict the plaintiff. Prior Proceeding: This case was heard in the Superior Court, Orange County, California. The Plaintiff was found guilty, and he filed an appeal to the California Supreme Court, which affirmed, then petitioned to the United States Supreme Court. Issues presented or questions of law: (1) Whether the Plaintiff …show more content…
He is also requesting that the decision be looked at by a higher court. Defendant: The Defendant believes that the arrest warrant gave the police the authority to search the house of the Plaintiff. It was given by a Judge in good faith, and that the police officer had adequate information to execute his duties. Holding/rule of Law: (1) According to the Fourth Amendment, a person has rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, any search in the Plaintiff home beyond his person and the area within his immediate control is unreasonable. (2) When the police officers arrested Chimel and search him, this all was legal, but when they started searching the house, this was illegal. They should have gone back down to the station and attain a search warrant to search the house for evidence. Therefore the evidence that was seized should be suppressed because they did not have a search warrant. This was outside the Fourth Amendment.
In the Supreme Court case named Carroll v. Carman, the two police officers Carroll and Roberts were investigating a report that an armed man named Zita had stolen a car and went to hide in the house of Andrew and Karen Carman. When they arrived at the house, they found there was no parking and went down a sidestreet that led to a gravel parking area. They parked in the first spots at the rear of the house. They approached the house and saw a sliding glass door that opened onto a deck. They knocked on the door and Andrew Carman came out and refused to answer their questions about Zita.
The case involved an individual by the name of Danny Escobedo, who was arrested on January 19, 1960, for the murder of his brother-in-law. Escobedo was arrested without a warrant and interrogated; he did not make any statement to the police and was released after contacting his lawyer. On January 30, Benedict DiGerlando, told the police about Escobedo’s involvement in the crime that Escobedo “had fired the fatal shots” (Escobedo v. Illinois- Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court, 1999, pg.2). He was later arrested a second time and taken to the police headquarters. Soon enough Escobedo requested to have “advice from my lawyer”
Brady v. United States 397 U.S. 742 (1970) Intro: The Petitioner plead guilty to kidnapping after his co-defendant decided to confess and testify against him. Whether Brady’s (the petitioner) plea was made voluntarily was the issue. Relevant Law: “Just because a defendant discovers that the State would have had a weaker case or that they were not going to impose the maximum punishment does not mean that the defendant is allowed by law to disown his statements made in open court.” Facts: The Petitioner, in 1959, was charged with kidnapping.
Kevin Moore, an inmate formerly housed at the Poplar Hill Pre-Release Unit, raises a failure to protect claim against Defendants, Sergeant William D. Jones and Correctional Officer II Ivan Tilghman, resulting from a physical altercation Plaintiff had with another inmate. He further alleges that he would not have sustained injury if Defendant Warden John Wolfe had appropriate security in place but fails to allege any allegations against him. Irrespective of whether Plaintiff has stated a claim, he failed to exhaust administrative remedies, prior to filing suit; therefore, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed. ECI is not a person amenable to suit and is entitled to sovereign immunity.
Parties: Charles Katz(Plaintiff) v. United States (Defendant) Facts: The Plaintiff Charles Katz was convicted of transmitting wagering information across state lines using a public telephone which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. &1084. He was being observed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) from February 19 to February 25, 1965 at set hours every day using the phone. After being suspicious the FBI placed listening devices on the telephone booth so they could record his calls.
United States v. Mark James Knights, 219 F. 3d 1138 Issue: The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents Fourth Amendment rights were infringed upon when law enforcement searched his home without a warrant. Even though respondent agreed to the terms of probation following release, which included searches of his person or premises with or without a warrant (The United States Department of Justice, 2014). Rule: The rule of law in regards to Knights probation conditions following release state that Knights would “submit his person, property, residence, vehicle, personal effects, to be searched at any time, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer” (Karagiozis et al., 2005 p. 223).
The Supreme Court argued that the police officer had reasonable suspicion and searching the men was in the best interest of the officer for his protection. It was an eight to one decision, the one being William Douglas. He argued that they were giving too much power to police, and that there should be a court order for search and seizure. In this time period, stop and frisks were an everyday thing. Law enforcement broke the fourth amendment most of the time, abusing their badge that allowed them to search who they want, when they want, whether they were acting a certain way or not.
They agreed that high schools shouldn’t need a search warrant because students have a reasonable expectation of how they should act during school hours. The possession of cigarettes was contrary to whether she was being truthful or not, and because T.L.O. was immediately taken to the principal’s office, it made sense to think that there was evidence in her belongings. Because of this, Choplick had a reasonable argument to believe that she had cigarettes in her purse, and so it was constitutional to search through her purse. When Choplick searched the purse, the evidence was in plain sight. This is a large exception to the Fourth Amendment, so he did not require a search warrant for the penetrating of T.L.O.’s belongings.
The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).
The fourth amendment protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure. In order for a search and seizure to happen the police have to have evidence in order to get a warrant which allows them to search the citizens luggage, house, etc. In some cases the government may go to far, or invade privacy of others, but in this case the government didn’t go to far and this is proven in DLKs case, thermal imager, and heat image. In DLKs case he was taking reasonable expectation of privacy in the activities he was doing in his home.
In the Robinson case, the Court decided that the 4th amendment includes the full warrantless search of a person and his or her property, within immediate control, at the time of arrest, but without any identifiable danger to police. With this specific decision, the Court places more power on the government as it allows them to obtain such evidence without needing to justify such searches. Similarly, in New York v Belton, the Court concluded that when an individual is subject to a lawful custodial arrest, police are constitutionally permitted to a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of that person’s vehicle if it was in immediate control at the time of arrest (ii). Belton expands the Chimel rule to apply to vehicles by clarifying that an individual has a lesser expectation of privacy of their automobile when they are lawfully
According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.
The question about the federal government that I address in this assignment is about the citizens’ rights that the Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution contains, along with the Miranda rights. Based on what we discussed in Chapter 4, the Fifth Amendment includes the right that protects the American citizens from self-incrimination in the event of an accusation. In that regard, the right, together with the Miranda right that gives citizens the right to clamp up provides immunity for the involved citizen against police interrogation that could culminate in forced and unfair self-incrimination. Even so, the current system of law enforcement is such that police officers can ask the accused any question they want without informing
Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. According to NBC News. Another shocking finding from this case was that by asking [Judge Aiken] to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so (Aiken). This came as a big shock to the nation because if the government was willing to ask for a dismissal of the lawsuit what else could they be doing behind our backs.
1 Kurt was arrested for the noise ordinance and possession of illegal and drug paraphernalia. Any search needs to be with a warrant. The fourth Amendment “the right of the people to be secure in their person against unreasonable searches and seizures…. but upon probable issue.”