The officer initiated a traffic stop and observed there were three men in the vehicle. The men were identified as the driver Partlow, and the passengers Pringle, and Smith. The officer asked Partlow for his license and registration. When Partlow opened his glove compartment to get his vehicle registration, the officer observed a large roll of money inside the compartment. He ran Partlow’s information for any wants or warrants and he came back negative for both.
Facts: Mrs. Moore entered into the Midwest City Target looking for a magnetic chess set and was informed that Target does not sell those. When Mrs. Moore was made aware of this information she started looking in the toy section. She picked up a telescope and the package was priced for around five or six dollars, so she purchased the telescope. Mr. Lanigan became aware of the situation and took the package from her car, led her inside, recited her rights, and accused her of switching price tags to make the item cheaper for her. One of Retail Shrinkage Control Employees also accused her of switching price tags.
The majority opinion discussed the Fourth Amendment and explains now it provides the the ability to arrest individuals without a warrant when the officers have probable cause that a suspect has committed a criminal offense. During this traffic stop, the arresting officer determined a crime had occurred. It was up to the court to determine if the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle. Chief Justice Rehnquist determined that the arresting officers proved a crime occurred and there was probable cause to determine Pringle should be arrested. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, when three people are in the car where drugs are located and the owner of the drugs is not clear with no one admitting possession, it is reasonable for the officers to believe that either one or all of the occupants of the vehicle committed the offense.
The police practice of carding is fundamentally perceived as a race and class issue that has come to define a tumultuous relationship between police and people of colour from the past to modern-day, causing a mistrust in police and the system. The practice of police stops allow police to operate in a grey area by obtaining evidence and information through psychological intimidation, many times directed to youth. The recent call for legislation and accountability of police has brought the issue to the forefront of media and public concern. There have been many police and community based investigations on the practice, one being the Police and Community Engagement Review (PACER). PACER stipulated that the police were going to go forward
Opinion: The opinion for this case was 6-3 upholding to Mapp. She used the First Amendment rights for her case during court. However, Mapps also used the Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution saying that because it was an unfair search and seizure. Her house was her privacy and they were unfairly trespassing. 10.
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
Amy Albritton went to Houston to a job offer that her boyfriend, Wilson, got. While Wilson was driving Albritton’s car they were stopped by a police. The officer David Helms, with the consent of Albritton, searched her car. Helms found a white crumb on the floor, the officer believed it was crack cocaine,.
School officials can conduct a warrantless search if a student has evidence of illegal activity or is doing an activity that interferes with school order and discipline. The court changed the ruling on T.L.O. because they said that just having the cigarettes didn’t violate school rules, so they didn’t have a justifiable reason to search her purse. When the Case went to the Supreme Court, they were supposed to decide if evidence that is unlawfully taken by a school official can be allowed as evidence in a Juvenile Court proceeding. It was argued on March 28, 1984 and on October 2, 1984. They ruled on January 15, 1985.
The student’s voluntarily provided the officer with additional drugs and provided written consent, to a search of the room although they had the right to refuse the search and demand a search warrant. Reasoning/Analysis of the Court The Court held that the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted the officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence discovered "in a place where the officer has a right to be." The Court held that the officer had a right to be at the first students’ elbow at all times. The officer obtained lawful access to the student’s dorm room and was free to seize incriminating evidence.
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.
T.L.O is relying on court president which is similar to the case of Mapp vs Ohio, that if you don’t have a warrant and you go in and find evidence that that is excluded from trial so they shouldn’t be able to use the contents of T.L.O’s purse. This case is a restraint case because it’s not going to change the rules of the school, it’s going to allow for the search. The court argues that it is correct that students do have an expectation of privacy. No student should expect to have a full scale body search. They also say that there needs to be a balancing test with schools ability to have law and order to run classes to make sure legal activities and drugs aren’t in the school to get in the way of educational objectives.
Earlier this month, a “sexting ring” at Canon City High School in Colorado was uncovered by school authorities. Involved were minors and legal adults, who had scandalist pictures and images of naked minors. This has brought upon the question of, “How do you prosecute and punish those involved in these acts?” Those responsible for these acts must take the punishment which they are served when the time comes. The judge is gathering the information and having the ones involved questioned.
1. The Fourth Amendment protects the fundamental of search and seizure. Which in this case, discusses the importance of obtaining physical evidence and how it is used. In other words, the Fourth Amendment can be violated if the evidence gathered has been obtained unreasonably.
Topic: In the 1970’s, many schools operating in Dade County used corporal punishment as a form of punishment for misbehavior. A male student attending a Dade County Junior High School was forcibly restrained and paddled after failing to allegedly adhere to school policies. The student claimed that the paddling of students as a means of maintaining school discipline constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment; Issues: (1) Was it unconstitutional for the school to administer corporal punishment under the Eighth Amendment? (2) Did the school’s principal and vice principal violate the student’s Eighth Amendment by restraining him during punishment? (3) Under the Fourteenth Amendment, was the principal required
Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.
