Chrisman V. Supreme Court Case Analysis

As illegal drug use have become a nationwide problem, public employers, like fire departments, are testing employees for illegal drug use. Fire departments want to keep a drug free environment but they must be aware of the legal aspects that limit their power to test for illegal drugs. In The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the privacy of individuals against random and unreasonable intrusions by the government. As such, fire departments must only test employees for drug use in compliance with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

In order to get such approval, the officer must have probable cause and swear they believe a crime is being committed. However, if the judiciary is not present, officers were able to conduct a warrantless search. This changed in 1914, when the Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule. This rule states that evidence obtained unconstitutionally is excluded in court and cannot be used as part of the case. The Fourth Amendment goes hand in hand with the Fourteenth Amendment which states that no state, “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

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).

Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle 540 U.S. 366 (2003) Parties: State of Maryland, Petitioner / Appellant Joseph Jermaine Pringle, Defendant / Appellee Facts: On the morning of August 7th, 1999 at 3:16 a.m., a Baltimore Police Officer conducted a stop on a passenger car for speeding. As the officer approached the car he noticed it was occupied by three males one of which was the respondent, Joseph Jermaine Pringle located in the front passenger seat. As the driver retrieved the vehicle’s proof of registration for the glove compartment located in front of Pringle, the officer noticed what appeared to be a large amount of currency rolled up in the glove compartment in plain view. After obtaining the driver’s license and registration, the police officer went back to his patrol car and conducted a check for warrants and prior traffic violations.

This case is freedom vs order argument. They say that the vice-principal had the constitutional right to search the bag, he had reasonable suspicion and that is the magic word that gives students expectation of privacy while balancing it with law and order of the school. The court goes on to say that he’s further not violating the constitution because once he saw the evidence, it was in plain view and theirs a plain view doctrine which is another exception to the fourth amendment which

In document A “The Supreme Court rule that the warrantless search was valid because otherwise, Carrol might drive away and the evidence would disappear. In this case,the warrantless search was found to be constitutional. ”However In this case the warrantless search was not constitutional because the evidence was not disappearing. DLK was growing more than 100 marijuana plants meaning he had a sizable business, and he would most likely grow more after selling them.

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. The issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

However, the Fourth Amendment is not an assurance against all search and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable by the law. According to the Legal Information institute an unreasonable search is any search conducted by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and/or “without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present.” () If any evidence is found during an illegal search and seizure then the evidence is

Where there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes, no consent to go to the police station, and no prior judicial authorization for detaining him, the investigative detention at the station for fingerprinting purposes violated Hayes rights under the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Reasoning: The police without a warrant or probable cause removed a subject from his home and transported him to the police station, where he was not free to go, although he was there briefly for questioning, In addition fingerprinted him.

School officers do not require a warrant or probable cause to search students because the school officers are considered the guardian. Notwithstanding police officers need probable cause to search students. Schools may test any student in an extra curricular after school activity for drug usage. However, the school may not single out a student for testing. Found in the court case of The Board of Education V Earls 2002.

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

The local police received a tip from an informant that a supply store was allegedly growing and selling marijuana. The enforcement needed proof that illegal activity was taking place at this business location, so they went through extreme measures to get surveillance to prove illegal activities were taking place. Utilizing a paid informant is an area of concern to ethicists who believe that informants are often paid to get away with crimes. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause”(Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, & Taylor, 2012). As a consequence, the successful use of informant in supporting requests for a warrant depends on the reliability of their information.

In a New Jersey bathroom a teacher found two girls in the bathroom and immediately took them to the principal 's office. The one girl confessed of smoking but TLO,the other girl, wouldn’t admit to it. The principal demanded to search her purse. In the purse he found evidence that she was also dealing marijuana at school. The principal found a wad of money in the girl 's purse.