The U.S. Constitution allows for freedom from unreasonable search and seizure by public sector officials. This is stated in the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The public sector cannot search personal belongings without probable cause, or in most situations a warrant. Vile cites (Vile,J,2010, A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments,p.141)," The Fourth Amendment thus begins by specifying that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated." Thus, evidence gathered without probable cause can't be used against a person. This concept is called The Exclusionary Rule. The courts have applied this rule to denying evidence attained illegally, as stated, (Vile,2010,p.144)," It prohibited prosecutors from introducing evidence at trials that …show more content…
In this case, seized property was done so by the private sector. The private sector is not bound by constitutional restrictions. Nemeth states (Nemeth,C,2012, Private Security and The Law,p.72)," The Supreme Court held unequivocally that Fourth Amendment protection was not available to litigants and claimants arrested, searched, or seized by private parties." The private sector receives its authority through statutory and common law. According to (Nemeth,2012,p.73)," Because private police do not derive their authority from a constitutional framework, the foundation of the arrest action rests in common and statutory law - those codifications that simultaneously give the power of arrest to a private person."
In my opinion, the People vs. Zelinski case makes the most sense in overturning the Burdeau decision. The case
Transcript of Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Gideon v Wainright Dates: Argued January 15, 1963 Decided March 18, 1963 Background: Charged in a Florida State Court with a non capital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Mapp v. Ohio Dates : Argued March 29, 1961
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
In the case of Weeks v. United States on December 21, 1911 in Kansas City, Missouri Freemont Weeks was arrested at his job on suspicion of transporting lottery tickets through the mail, meanwhile officers were entering into his residence without his permission or a warrant. Weeks took this case to trail to petition for the return of his private possessions. If the court decides to not return his property he could be convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail which is illegal in Missouri. But this is a violation of his 4th Amendment rights if the court decides to use the evidence they was seized illegally.
Chapter 4 is titled "Criminal Investigatory Search Warrants. " Search warrant laws are found in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The elements of a search warrant include: (1) an order in writing, (2) issued by a proper judicial authority, (3) in the name of the people, (4) directed to a law enforcement officers, (5) commanding the officer to search for certain personal property, and (6) commanding the officer to bring that property before the judicial authority named in the warrant. Neutral judicial officers such as clerks of court, magistrates, complaint justices, judges, and justices of the peace are allowed to issue search warrants in their permitted jurisdictions. They must have probable cause before they can authorize a search warrant, which is usually done through an affidavit submitted by the law
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.
Warrantless searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable, absent an established exception. (Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366.) Officers may temporarily detain an individual to conduct an investigatory stop for the purposes of investigating a criminal offense without a warrant. (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 27.) Nonetheless, a warrantless investigatory stop constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
After being reviewed, the Court ruled that the search was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. They said that “the realities of the workplace” did not give him the same privacy of being in his own home. It states that an individual’s workspace can be searched because it’s the safety of the workplace and the space is property of the business, not the employee. (O'Connor v. Ortega, n.d.).
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.
Citation: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 535 U.S. 234 (2002) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Facts: The Free Speech Coalition which is a non-profit trade association of the pornography and adult entertainment industry in the United States filed suit, against the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). The child pornography prevention act prohibits and sets penalties for activities such as depicting any visual image of the sexual abuse of minors. This includes pictures, video, and even modified images with the likeness or appearance of a minor engaging in a sexual act. The Promotion, advertisement, and distribution of such works are also prohibited and have consequences.
Incorporation Doctrine and McDonald v. Chicago The McDonald v. Chicago case was a crucial decision by the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment and state law. This case is interesting for a couple of reasons in my opinion. Firstly, the case revolves around legislation of the 2nd Amendment which is a right held dear to myself and many other Americans. Secondly, the case gives an example of the incorporation doctrine being fully applied.
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 U.S. Supreme Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The warrantless search of Greenwood’s garbage bags would violate the Fourth Amendment only if Greenwood showed a subjective expectation of privacy of the garbage and society accepts it as objectively reasonable. The U.S Supreme Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets where animals, children, scavengers, and the public have access to it. Criminal activity that can be seen by any member of the public cannot be reasonably expected to be ignored by the police.
To begin, we need to understand the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment was created to prevent the government from breaching into our homes and convicting us of crimes based on evidence they discover within our homes. It was vital to state unreasonable searches in the constitution, and an unreasonable search is a search done without
An officer may only be allowed to search a person 's personal belongings if their reasoning is associated with a lawful arrest and if they have a probable cause to search (Matthews). After it being a huge deal in New York, other cities and states began embracing the use of stop-and-frisk as it began growing around the United States. In the 1950s police officials in other cities took up, and expanded, the stop-and-search tactics by using the LAPD to embrace the theory of crime
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect