Case Study: Payton V. New York

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.

There are two kinds of search and seized warrants the Fourth Amendment permits according to the Supreme Court, those made without or with a warrant. A warrant

A warrant is a document which gives law enforcement the authorization or the right from a judge to conduct a search of an area or make an arrest of a person. The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to show probable cause to a judge to be able to obtain a warrant. The search warrant is limited to only the location or the person listed and law enforcement must obtain another warrant to cover other areas not included. When a search warrant is issued, property and persons found at that location with the connection to that property may be taken into custody. Probable cause which is needed to obtain a warrant also allows law enforcement to search areas without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment affirms that "people are secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, no Warrants shall issue, describe the place to search, and the persons or things to be seized." There should be a warrant for everything if what a person is being charged for is risking their rights as a U.S citizen. For example the privacy of a citizen is safe under the Fourth Amendment. Second, the property belonging to U.S citizens is secure from search and seizure without a warrant. Third, due to the Fourth Amendment, any citizen is safe from unfair arrests. Even though warrants help citizens they also make it more difficult for detectives and they make it difficult for government to collect evidence to use it against someone who actually commits

Evan Miller’s counsel filed a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court, and the Court

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.

he fourth amendment was heavily rooted in the legal doctrine. The fourth amendment was created to limit the government 's power. This was also made for a direct response to abuse. This amendment is part of the bill of rights, which are the first ten amendments of the United States. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress .

To be frank, the fourth amendment is a security blanket for American citizens; it protects them from illegal searches and seizures. The amendment was one of the first ten, which made up the original bill of rights in the constitution. Many were added to it since then, but the first ten remain extremely important. Without the fourth amendment, America and its citizens could be subject to searches and seizures at any time.

The case Foster v. Chatman is a very difficult and unpleasant case. The case highlights

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. During the trial, Weeks attempted to get the court to reconsider the use of the illegally obtained evidence, but they denied his plea.

School officials are not allowed to conduct searches on students without probable cause; and random searches are not permissible according to The Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that a person has the right to be secure in their homes, and personal effects and to prevent them against un-probable search cases.

On appeal Mr. Nealy’s attorney argued that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain Mr. Nealy’s conviction. The appellate court stated that it did not need to decide the issue on the merits because it was not properly preserved for appeal because it was not raised during Mr. Nealy’s motion for a judgement of acquittal. The court continued though to say that it would affirmed the conviction on the merits of the issue as well.

The unresolved questions that attend the exclusionary rule can serve as catalysts of law that could foster harmonious relations among federal and state governments in their common responsibility of balancing individual freedom against governmental regulation and restraint.” In addition, in her Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology article, Expanding Exclusionary Rule Exceptions and Contracting Fourth Amendment Protection, Professor Heather A. Jackson states, “In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution mandated the exclusionary rule as a remedy of a Fourth Amendment violation in state proceedings. The Mapp Court examined the foundation of the precedent of Wolf, which came to the opposite conclusion, and ultimately

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.

differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee 's person" (Garner, 2010, p. 5).