Case Name, Citation, Year Cook v. Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA), 09-cv-00547 M.D. Fla. (2009) Facts of the Case: On June 16, 2009 parents of female athletes at FHSAA member schools filed suit against the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging that the newPolicy 6 discriminates against female students according to Title IX by reducing school participation in completions by 40 percent at the varsity level and 20 percent at the sub-varsity level. The plaintiffs also stated a complaint that male driven sports where exempt from this action because cheerleading was not recognized as a sport thus breaking the Title IX law. Issues: Why did Policy 6 reduced the number of competitions
Illinois v. Cabelles In 1998 Roy Caballes was pulled over for speeding, the police officers were entirely within the law and their jurisdiction, however, when they hindered the stop and preformed a sniff search they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The officer Gillette proceeds as he does in all traffic stops and requested Caballes for his license, registration, and insurance and if he had any warrants, Caballes stated he did not, in addition if he had ever been arrested before in which Caballes stated he had not. The officer’s last request to search Caballes vehicle, Caballes kindly stated no. Upon returning to his police cruiser to run a want and warrants check on Caballes, Officer Gillette found out that Caballes had been arrested
In 1988, California v. Billy Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten was about a suspecting of selling and using drugs in Mr. Greenwood house a narcotic officer told the man to bring her the trash bag which Greenwood had placed out the street for pick up, but as the officer search the bags she found drug paraphernalia which was used as evidence to convict Mr. Greenwood but the lower court revoked it because she search the trash bag without a warrant and that was a violation of the fourth amendment. but the trash bags was placed on the street were any child or animal can unseal it so he could not argue about his privacy if it was out in the police for anything or any person to expose the content of the bags but the court stated “ the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public “ this means
In the case of Timothy Ivory Carpenter V. UNITED STATES Did the government overstep its bounds in Detroit without getting a probable cause warrant, and did the government violated the 4th amendment of Timothy Ivory Carpenter? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,but upon probable cause, the police have the right to searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That is the 4th amendment. So what are the facts of the case then? (“United States v. Carpenter.”
Pp. 5–28. (a) A warrantless search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. See Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. The well-established exception at issue here applies when a warrantless search is conducted incident to a lawful arrest.
The Fourth Amendment draws a line at the entrance of a home. In order for an officer to enter into a home, they must first obtain a warrant. While this is the easiest way to enter into a home, there are exceptions to the necessity of a warrant. An officer does not need a warrant when there is consent, it involves a vehicle, at incident to arrest, containers, or it is an emergency. This case is considered an emergency.
The California Court of Appeal later affirmed the convictions and denied the suppression of evidence on the basis of California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Diaz. 3. Issue: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Riley involves whether police officers can search a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant during an arrest. In Riley v. California, the lower court ruled that a police officer not only can seize and secure a suspect’s cell phone during an arrest, but they can also search the contents of that phone without a warrant or probable cause.
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
The case Foster v. Chatman is a very difficult and unpleasant case. The case highlights the embarrassing and disgraceful episodes of the United States’ history. Racism, discrimination and prejudice have occurred, since the inception of the country. The United States’ pledge of allegiance reads, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” This statement is a very strong declaration, when it is often said, it can lose its sticking meaning, however this pledge can be deceptive.
The 4th amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In the context of the 4th amendment, a search is considered or happens, “when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Ryan) An example of a search under the 4th amendment is forms of searches such as stip searches or visual body searches but they have to be supported by a probable cause and be conducted in a reasonable matter. A seizure of an individual under the 4th amendment means or happens , “when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the encounter, that the person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will.”
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.
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 Exclusionary Rule: Enforcing the Fourth Amendment This section begins by explaining that in 1914, the court reexamined their previous ruling as to whether or not one could submit evidence to a court that had been illegally seized (Ingram, 2009). One specific case that the textbook references in relation to this is the case of Weeks v. the United States. In this particular case, the police had seized evidence that they had taken from the defendant’s residence without a proper search warrant. This evidence was then used against the defendant in court and he was convicted as a result.
The fourth amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” To me, this means, in order for the American people to feel that they and their belongings are safe, only an official sworn into office can issue a warrant. This warrant can also be issued with probable cause, or reasonable belief, that some crime has been committed. Upon issuance of said warrant, the sworn official must specify exactly where police are allowed to search and the exact things or people they are allowed to look for and take in their investigation.
Therefore, the only way a search and seizure of a citizens’ private property is legal is with a reasonable exception. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment keeps the belongings of American people secure from warrantless searches and
