Case: Horton v. California Citation: 496 U.S. 128 (1990) Year Decided: 1990 Facts: After obtaining a warrant for stolen items from an armed robbery, a California police officer searched petitioner Horton’s home. The officer had described both the weapons used and property stolen in the affidavit for the search warrant, but the Magistrate issuing the warrant only authorized a search for the stolen property. Even though the police did not discover the stolen property, weapons matching the officer’s description were found in plain view and seized. Horton ended up being convicted of armed robbery after a motion to suppress the seized evidence was denied by the trial court.
Upon his arrival one of the officers showed Chimel the arrest warrant and asked if he could look around, Chimel objected and in the short of it said no. Even with him objecting the officers read Chimel his rights and then continued to look around the small house, garage, and workshop. In the main bedroom of Chimel home the officers found coins, medals, and tokens in the dresser drawer. Chimel was arrested and the items were placed into evidence, were he would be tried on two charges of burglary. Legal Question: When issued
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.
Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle 540 U.S. 366 (2003) Parties: State of Maryland, Petitioner / Appellant Joseph Jermaine Pringle, Defendant / Appellee Facts: On the morning of August 7th, 1999 at 3:16 a.m., a Baltimore Police Officer conducted a stop on a passenger car for speeding. As the officer approached the car he noticed it was occupied by three males one of which was the respondent, Joseph Jermaine Pringle located in the front passenger seat. As the driver retrieved the vehicle’s proof of registration for the glove compartment located in front of Pringle, the officer noticed what appeared to be a large amount of currency rolled up in the glove compartment in plain view. After obtaining the driver’s license and registration, the police officer went back to his patrol car and conducted a check for warrants and prior traffic violations.
In document A “The Supreme Court rule that the warrantless search was valid because otherwise, Carrol might drive away and the evidence would disappear. In this case,the warrantless search was found to be constitutional. ”However In this case the warrantless search was not constitutional because the evidence was not disappearing. DLK was growing more than 100 marijuana plants meaning he had a sizable business, and he would most likely grow more after selling them.
Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the
This case is freedom vs order argument. They say that the vice-principal had the constitutional right to search the bag, he had reasonable suspicion and that is the magic word that gives students expectation of privacy while balancing it with law and order of the school. The court goes on to say that he’s further not violating the constitution because once he saw the evidence, it was in plain view and theirs a plain view doctrine which is another exception to the fourth amendment which
The exclusionary rule was first established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914. During the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained by the law enforcement officer was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will be inadmissible in federal courts. This rule later became effective in the state courts in 1961 due to the unlawful search of Mrs. Mapp’s house in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. As a result of this case, Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials but later argued that the law enforcement officer could not use the materials in the trial because they were obtained without a warrant. Although the exclusionary rule is not an independent constitutional right, it serves many purposes such as aiding in the deterrence of police misconduct and providing solutions to defendants whose
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.
Green was placed in handcuffs checked for proper fit then double locked and placed in my patrol car. A search incident to arrest revealed that Green had three twenty dollar bills on his person. Of the three twenty dollars bills one matched the serial number of the counterfeit bill which I had just seized from Casey 's. The note was seized from Green and placed into evidence as #18595. Green was transported to booking for processing then later lodged at the Butler County
However, the Fourth Amendment is not an assurance against all search and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable by the law. According to the Legal Information institute an unreasonable search is any search conducted by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and/or “without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present.” () If any evidence is found during an illegal search and seizure then the evidence is
Searches have generally always required warrants, but over time the Court created exceptions. These exceptions have broken down the broad distinction created that was originally created by “reasonableness.” Two categorical exceptions were created by essentially balancing public and private interests: “special needs” and “totality of the circumstances.” Special needs cases arise when there is some great public need other than ordinary criminal detection present.
In Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 PA. 441 (1968), on November 16, 1964, at about 11:30 a.m. four detectives went to appellant 's home with a body warrant for appellant and a search warrant for the premises. The complaint for the search warrant recited that the affiant, Detective John McCrory, deposed that there was probable cause to believe that certain books, papers, and other items used for the purpose of a lottery were in the possession of Henderson Newman at or near 721 West Mary Street. They forcefully entered the appellant 's home without announcement or purpose. The court held that, the forcible entry without announcement of purpose violates the Fourth Amendment. The fruits of an illegal search are inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio,