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 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?
When a New York Police officer put Eric Garner in headlock and started chocking Eric, even though he repeatedly said he couldn’t breathe. The incident lasted somewhere from 15- 18 seconds while the officer was obtaining him. The Medical Examiner of New York City said that the death of Garner was due to mixture of things. Eric Garner had a history of poor health and with the combination of a chokehold and the compression of his chest was the cause of death. a That matter in the fact is that is illegal for a police officer to put a suspect or obtained in a “headlock.” The officer in the death of Eric Garner denies any use of headlocks or chokeholds, but according to multiple eye witnesses and video evidence some may say otherwise.
The police officers asked the employers if they had seen anything suspicious and they told the officers that they were not able to clean the upper floors. They became suspicious of that afterwards, so they went to the upper floors to check it out. They then realized what they had discovered, they saw the torture chamber holmes used to kill his victims. Holmes was first charged with insurance scams and then later on he was charged for first degree murder of Benjamin Pitezel.
In 2013, the Supreme Court case Moncrieffe v. Holder refuses a Board of Immigration Appeals to removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident based on a long term criminal conviction related to sole possession of small amounts of marijuana. The case finally made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which is considered a rather technical question of the interpretation of the U.S Immigration laws. Local police departments have long been accused of profiling Hispanic, African-Americans, and other minorities of race in law enforcement activities, including run of the mill traffic stop. Critics fear that immigration enforcement by state and local authorities will lead to increase of racism. Many Americans have shown concerns with the implementation of racist discrimination of the U.S immigration laws by state police agencies and local authorities.
In June 2008, the Supreme Court was asked in District of Columbia v. Heller to consider whether a District of Columbia provision that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the general registration of handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The petitioner, Dick Heller, was a D.C. special police office authorized to carry a handgun on duty. Heller sued the District of Columbia for violating his Second Amendment right when his one-year application to keep his handgun at home for personal use was denied. Arguably the most controversial amendment of the constitution in present-day, the Second Amendment reads, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right
As it states on pg.5 “The person who is in custody and subject to interrogation must be advised of the rights referred to in Miranda v Arizona in order for statements made during the interrogation to be admissible against him or her at trial.”. The state argues that what he said was voluntary and that he was not under interrogation when he made the statement that he did about how much he had to drink. The sixth amendment states that one can’t incriminate oneself outside of Miranda rights. So anything said to the police or that the police have would be invalid because he wasn’t read and asked if he understood his rights. The fourth amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
Fields felt that his First Amendment rights had been violated. He appealed his case to the court of appeals. He argued that it was okay to falsify his claims, because he they were about him. He didn’t harm anyone in lying about himself. The court of appeals overturned his conviction because they thought the Stole Valor Act was unnecessary.
Ohio, 367 U.S 436 (1966) and Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) will explain in debt on how the fourth amendment has been adjusted to fit the justce system. People who are not part of law enforcemt should not interven with investigations because it makes the issue more diffuclt, but like every law or rule it can be justified. they are two factors that can be consided when determinding when a private person is acting as an "instrument of the state." one way private people can be justified is by how much the government had influenced the private person. another way this can be justifiable is when the governent is using the person to obtain eveidence ( 'the discovery of the criminal activity or evidence").
This amendment was for the citizens to defend themselves in case of emergencies, back when the amendment was created, for defending themselves against British being one example. The people could not defend themselves when the British housed themselves inside the American homes. The framers’ intent was for the militia to be well regulated, just not as we would think nowadays, being
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.
The police then interrogated some of Wolf’s clients. 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
They could not agree on many aspects of the case, as two majority opinions and four minority opinions were filed. They explained that they made their decision based on the fact that the state of Florida violated the 14th Amendment by enacting a recount, the Equal Protection Clause specifically. This clause requires the federal government to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of American citizens. Government cannot infringe on the civil rights of the people. They decided that asking for the recounts violated the rights of the citizens of Florida (phschool.com, 1).
Stare Decisis Examining Hofsherier’s equal protection analysis the majority in Johnson not only held that the analysis was wrong but also concluded that stare decisis did not compelled to court to follow Hofsheier as precedent. In addition, Johnson indicated that Hofsheier’s analysis was faulty, which resulted in a number of sex crimes against minors. The Court referred to these “broad consequences” as the reason why stare decisis should not be allowed in order to correct an error in our constitutional jurisprudence. Stare decisis is one of the most important doctrines for the legal system. The doctrine states that courts are bound by decisions held in earlier cases.
It is difficult for someone in this situation to escape the inference that they knew what was in their bag or sock or pockets. Similarly, where drugs are stored in a part of a house that is private (say, in a person 's bedroom) it is open to be inferred that they had possession of those drugs. The case of the leftover drugs A guest at a party left marijuana in a bathroom cupboard. During a raid some time later, a resident of the house told police that he knew the drugs were there and that he had intended to dump them. He was found not guilty of possession because he had laid no claim to the drugs and had exercised no control over them.