The second main point of argument that the court listened to was based on the precedent case of Chimel v. California 395 U.S. 752 (1969). In Chimel, it was ruled that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the body of a person and the immediate area, to remove any weapons for officer safety. It is also reasonable to seize any evidence found in order to prevent it 's concealment or destruction. The Chimel case also was the base to the Search Incident To Arrest doctrine. On the point of officer safety Riley argued that the data on a cell phone could not be used as a weapon to endanger officer safety or to aid the arrestee 's escape from custody.
The case of Mapp versus Ohio became very contentious during the 1960s. The verdict in this case altered history in a gigantic way, and continues to effect the legal system even today. A search warrant was not present when police showed up at Dollree Mapp’s house on May 23rd, 1957. The police entered the home in search of a bombing suspect they deemed was housed in Cleveland, Ohio with Mapp. Also, she declined their entry because they did not have a search warrant, but they proceeded in anyways.
Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional. On August 22, 2009, the police stopped David Leon Riley for driving with an expired registration tag.
Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp 's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court where she lost the case in fighting her for first amendment rights. Then, Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of the officers and got her case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where she won. At the time of the case, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, meaning that the evidence found in Mapp’s home was used against her in the Ohio court, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was very controversial. It changed how handle evidence and forced police officers to take special precautions when obtaining evidence. In the case of Mapp, Mapp 's attorneys argued that the obscene material found in Mapp’s house had been unlawfully seized and should not be allowed as evidence. Prior to Mapp’s trial the Supreme Court had ruled in Weeks vs the United States that illegally obtained evidence was not permissible in Federal Court. But did this same principle apply to states?
In this article, My turn: You don’t get to assault police officers, opinionated from Chief Steve Strachan of the Bremerton Police Department and Kitsap County Sheriff Gary Simpson, both provided insightful thoughts from an officer’s point-of-view. Chief Strachan and Sheriff Simpson addressed the truth be told from under the veil of negativity aimed at police officers. Hence, this article can be looked upon both negatively and positively, provided a Chief and Sheriff’s opinion of the current negativity portrayed upon officers. Subsequently, quoted from the article, “first, we all need to be more aware of the underlying ‘spin’ in messages and headlines about so-called ‘police violence’ and second, we absolutely have to focus on the fact that it is not acceptable, ever, to attack or assault police officers.”
To Justice Scalia, this means that the individual has “the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (Scalia, 4). The question at stake, however, is not whether the individual or collective is protected but the scope of the right in question. In other words, while it is clear that the amendment protects the right to use guns for military services but does not protect its use for crimes, what rights does it encompass in between those extremities, such as the right to carry a weapon for personal self-defense? A more natural reading of the amendment, where the prefactory clause is read chronologically before the operative clause, shows the text’s intent to solely protect the rights of militia. This is proven, as pointed out in the dissent, by the fact that states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania explicitly articulated in their Declaration of Rights at the time the separate right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense.
An exaplple of n the fourth amendment was being violated is the case, Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S 465, 475 (1921) is the case that stared the debate of public and private searches. this case is about a privtae person enterning and searching McDowell 's office. he seized specific papers and turned them over a public prosecutor who wantted to use it in court. Since eveince was not a pursuant and the government did not play a role in the prcoess of the searcha nd seizure the court ruled for the papers to be returned.
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).
Four dissenting judges believed that the full legal context of the Second Amendment should have been reviewed. Heller v. District of Columbia was brought into question for the dissent and how it addressed concealed carry restrictions. According to the dissent the Heller case ensured that the government was not to deprive its citizens of a constitutional right to carry firearms and that concealed carry extended beyond private property. In a separate dissent, Judge Silverman and Judge Bea argued that the near complete refusal of certain counties to administer concealed carry permits would fail to pass any form of scrutiny. The dissent also stated that, while statistically insignificant, concealed carry may not reduce the violent crime rates; however, they do not contribute to more of it.
And if those considered free of criminal involvement may nevertheless be searched or inspected under civil statutes, it is difficult to understand why the Fourth Amendment would prevent entry onto their property to recover evidence of a crime not committed by them but by others. As we understand the structure and language of the Fourth Amendment and our cases expounding it, valid warrants to search property may be issued when it is satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises. The Fourth Amendment has itself struck the balance between privacy and public need, and there is no occasion or justification for a court to revise the Amendment and strike a new balance by denying the search warrant in the circumstances present here and by insisting that the investigation proceed by subpoena duces tecum, whether on the theory that the latter is a less intrusive alternative or
The information derived from those interrogations, under the exclusionary rule as it is applied today, would have been inadmissible due to them being obtained through the use of illegally seized evidence. Weeks v U.S. (1914) set the precedence for the exclusionary rule to be used in federal court cases. Mapp v Ohio (1961) set the precedence for the exclusionary rule to be used in state court cases. This ruling was retroactive for Wolf v. Colorado
However, mere suspicion does not permit law enforcement officers to stop, question or frisk an individual. But, the officer can continue observing the suspected individual(s) to see if any higher level of suspicion develops. Reasonable suspicion is the lowest standard of proof. It is a conclusion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. According to Terry v. Ohio, Reasonable suspicion grants permission to an officer to conduct a stop, question and possibly frisk.
Describe one argument that supports “stop and frisk” policies. One argument that supports “stop and frisk” is the protection of the law enforcement and the community (Ivers, 2013). Ivers mention, “Chief Justice Earl Warren made clear that the "stop and frisk" exception was based on the need to protect police officers from criminal suspects carrying weapons” (2013). If there’s probable cause to stop a citizen, law enforcement should make sure the citizen they have stopped is not going to cause them bodily harm.
The case starts off by Officer Gung Ho being on foot patrol during the day shift. He receives a call from dispatch about possible drug sales occurring on Main Street. Officer Ho sees three individuals standing on the corner. Officer Ho approaches them and asks what they are doing. Dan, one of the individuals, and another begin to walk away leaving the third person, Junkie Jane.