Our current body of search law is the ongoing process of the communication of legislation, case law, and Constitutional law. “The Fourth Amendment states the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Taylor, Fritsch, & Liederbach2015). Numerous question is still raised on the specific details occurring in the searches and seizures of digital evidence. Overall, the questions focus on whether or not an activity is a "search" and whether a search is "reasonable."
On October 31, 1968, in Cleveland, Ohio a Cleveland police officer, named Martin McFadden, saw three men acting suspiciously around a jewelry store, which he believed they were casing a job. The officer, McFadden, walked up to three men and asked a few questions; afterwards, he proceeded to stop and frisk them. McFadden found a pistol in John Terry’s pocket, a revolver in Richard Chilton’s pocket and nothing was found on Carl Katz. The officer arrested Terry and Chilton for carrying concealed weapons and Carl Katz was sent free. Terry was convicted and sentenced to three years in jail.
The first case that caused the Supreme Court to allow officers to authorize a search and seizure, was the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968. The case ruled whether or not it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from an unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court then determined that the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion”. Suspicions such as a person that may seem like they’re planning a crime, have committed a crime, or that may be armed and appear as dangerous. The reason why this policy escalated was due to an incident that happened On October 31, 1963 in Cleveland, Ohio.
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.
This exception should and should not be extended to warrantless searches when an officer has a good-faith belief that probable cause exists depending on the circumstances. A warrantless search is from a different perspective. It is a legally consented search due to exigent circumstances, emergency, and plain view. The warrantless search conducted by good faith should suppress the evidence only when the criteria of invalid consent are not meet. If an officer abuses their authority, harasses, prolong questioning, and intimidate a detaining this ruling should apply.
The Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment which covers the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures also known as protecting our right to privacy. The Court said, "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States ' interest in eradicating it... the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight". This case has shown that an inconvenience to a motorist 's privacy is acceptable when we are dealing with the larger purpose of saving lives.
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.
Racism is an ongoing issue which had been taking place for centuries. Racism can take various forms, direct, indirect, individual or institutional. Institutional racism however, has been questioned frequently recently in light of criminal justice system, especially and more noticeably in the US now, where many believe the police is treating/handling black people unfairly comparing to other ethnic groups. According to Macpherson (1999) institutional racism is where organisation does not provide appropriate service due to someone’s colour, culture or ethnic origin, and can take form of racial discrimination in forms of attitudes, behaviours and processes. Macpherson developed this definition when undertaking an inquiry of Stephen Lawrence, a black child who was murdered
Driving under the influence, is the crime of driving a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or other drugs, to a level that renders the driver incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely. The name of the offense varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from legal to colloquial terminology. Other terms include: drink-driving, drunk driving, drunken driving, impaired driving, operating under the influence, drinking and driving, over the prescribed limit . With alcohol, a drunk driver 's level of intoxication is typically determined by a measurement of blood alcohol content or BAC. A BAC measurement in excess of a specific threshold level, such as 0.05% or 0.08%, defines the criminal offense with no need to prove impairment.
THIS COURT SHOULD REJECT THE FOURTEENTH CIRCUIT’S TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPROACH AND INSTEAD APPLY A BRIGHT LINE STANDARD OF REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN AUTHORIZED DRIVER OF A RENTAL CAR HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH The Fourteenth Circuit Court of Appeals improperly applied the totality of the circumstances approach in determining that Respondent Larry Nightingale has standing to assert a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search of the rental vehicle he was driving at the time of the traffic stop checkpoint. The Fourth Amendment requires that the one who is making the challenge of the legality of a search to prove that he was personally the victim of an invasion of privacy. Rakas v Illinois, 439 U.S. 128,
Students, as United States citizens, expect protection of Constitutional rights. However, most do not realize that this coverage does not extend to condone any act the individual sees fit. There are certain limits, especially on those attending public schools. A student has certain rights including, but not limited to, the right to free speech and expression, the expectation of privacy, and freedom to practice religious freedom in assembly. These limits exist to ensure that not any one student can compromise another's’ pursuit of education.
The main facts of the case California v. Greenwood are that in the beginning of 1984, the police of Laguna Beach, California had information that gave them reason to believe that a certain person, Billy Greenwood, was dealing drugs. A police officer named Jenny Stracner told the garbage collectors to bring the trash from Greenwood’s residence to the police station so that they could go through the garbage to find if there was evidence of drug dealing. They did. They then obtained a warrant to search the house, and found more evidence. The police then arrested Greenwood.