The Majority of the court 's decision includes McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. The court had to decide in this case whether the seriousness of an offence or knowing that one might be a threat to public safety can be a justification to stop anyone without having solid evidence against them. The court stated that both Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer were guilty of carrying concealed weapons in a public place. The police had the right to search them even though their car didn’t match the description described by the 911 caller because the officers have to be consistent with their duty towards public safety and act in accordance to the seriousness of the
To start off with the most important thing about the 4th amendment is that we the people should for safe to go in public and not be afraid to be searched unless the police have probable cause, and reasonable suspicion. The first question i'll be addressing is what fundamental should a American have in the 4th Amendment. Katz v Ohio is a perfect example of what fundamental should a American have in the 4th Amendment, Katz was convicted under an 8-count indictment. I believe the government went too far by attaching a device to hear his conversations, that's invading personal privacy with a non probable cause. The next reason i'll be presenting is writs of assistance.
One of the main reason for civil rights laws is to protect civilians from government abuse. Even though the police officer went too far with a civilian, the police officer cannot be sued. The civilian still has recourse through federal law. Retired police officer David Couper talks to Dr. Greg Gelembiuk, one who gathers data from police reports, “Sometimes I hear the argument that raising the bar on police use of deadly force will somehow put more police officers in physical jeopardy.
DeMichel provides that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizure while requiring law enforcement personnel to provide notice of their identity and announce their purpose when entering upon private premises. The court found it unreasonable for the officers to forcible enter the premises with first giving the occupant an opportunity to voluntarily surrender the premises. Our client’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the plain clothed officers entered the premises without announcing their purpose and without providing Mr. Clavel the appropriate time to voluntarily open his door and surrender the premises for search. The unlawful search and seizure led to Mr. Clavel’s charges of intent to distribute
I, Judge Yen, find the evidence of the gift cards seized from Turner Round’s car inadmissible on the grounds of the violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Starting from the beginning, the stop that Officer Oliver Towns made of Mr. Round for a broken headlight is constitutional. Officer Towns verification of Round’s identity and vehicular history is also constitutional because it is an established police procedure. From verifying Mr. Round’s identity he discovered there was an active arrest warrant for the possession of marijuana and is allowed to arrest Mr. Round on those grounds. Although in the facts of the case, it is never explicitly stated that Mr. Round was arrested and read his Miranda rights, it is objectively clear that he is under arrest since Officer Towns placed Mr. Round in the back of
Since due process is how we define the order and the correct way of doing things, this is how it applies: In the Terry versus Ohio case, Terry believe that officers should have probable cause before the officer was able to stop and frisk individuals. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers have the right to stop and frisk without probable cause, meaning the process McFadden used was correct. On the other hand, in Miranda versus Arizona, Miranda had not been informed of his right to remain silent before giving his confession of committing the crimes he had been accused of. In turn his confession was not valid. If the officers had used the correct process and made Miranda aware of his right to remain silent, his confession could have been used in trial.
Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the
He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.
When it comes to policing there is a huge struggle power struggle between individual rights and public order. You want to keep individual rights, but you also want to keep public order while keeping the public safe. It may seem hard to keep the balance between these two, but doing so is of utter importance. Here are some examples of why it can be hard to balance individual rights and public order when dealing with policing.
In some ways this is like the book because all that is needed is permission from a higher power to access wherever they want. Another form of surveillance and way of invading privacy is street cameras and lamp post that recognize you and track your movements. In many instances the FBI has used street cameras to detect when a person was last seen. Cameras like that can tell the time and day you were seen. “The governments collection of this sensitive information is itself an invasion of privacy.
In the criminal justice system a police officer or crime scene investigator cannot legally search a person or property without a search warrant. There have been ongoing debates and revisions on the legal requirements and circumstances under which it is necessary to obtain a search and seizure warrant before crime scene processing. According to the Fourth Amendment search and seizure requirements, a warrant is required any time a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Therefore, in an effort to protect the right of the people and their belongings against unreasonable search and seizures and up hold the law officials accountable for fair treatment and processing procedures.
In such cases, it is immaterial whether the attacker has committed a serious felony, a misdemeanor, or any crime at all” (Katzenbach et al., 1967). Although this appears to be a sound example of a good policy set forth in the report, it is too opened ended and appears to go against other detailed guidelines that the report states, such as the outlines that specifically say when a weapon can and cannot be used. As we know, many times the usage of a firearm is unwarranted by police (Katzenbach et al., 1967) therefore, can the idea stated above, which outlines that police are supposed to make a choice about what kind of force they should make, undoubtedly in the heat of moment, truly offer protection if we know that the decision often made is unwarranted? Through the Report’s guideline no one can be safe because of the variation and differing degrees of safety that it
Citizens are concerned that taking samples of their DNA invades their privacy, and that DNA should only be gathered through proper procedures, which include obtaining a warrant. Supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor felt the same way stating "You are going to have to tell me why searching their person is different than searching their home or car". Another issue is the storage of samples and those who have access. In today’s world everything that is stored in databases has the potential to be accessed by unauthorized users, “some people worry that collecting DNA creates the potential for abuse of genetic information stored in
This case is regarded as one of the influential cases in the interpretation of fourth amendment. In this case, police took drug dogs to Jardines’ front porch to begin a preliminary search. The dogs then gave a positive alert for drugs, this gave the police probable cause
They may state that it is unconstitutional to require individuals to have a license or that they are not driving, they are traveling. If they actually do produce any type of license or registration they are often bogus documents. After the stop I would inform the officer that you may receive a bill for time spent with the