ipl-logo

Supreme Court Case Analysis

1103 Words5 Pages

In this paper I will be discussing the United States Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. Gant on automobile searches. I will discuss the case Implications for policy changes and practices of the 4th admendment. I will use comparative methods by using a legal analysis of prior cases similar to this. The paper will illustrate how this case changed settle case law on searches of automobiles incident to arrest. In this paper, I will also explain what the fourth admendment of the constitution reads, and how Arizona v. Gant limits police vehicle searches.
United States Supreme Court Decision in Arizona v. Gant
Prior to the Supreme Court’s opinion on Arizona v. Grant it was a standard practice under New York v Belton for police to conduct a search …show more content…

No warrants shall be issue but upon probable cause, it must be supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized. In reality, there are always other ways to obtaining a search warrant. The 4th admendment says tha the search must be executed reasonably. Usually the federal agents can execute warrants. State and local ifficers can help the feds even if they working outside their jurisdiction as long as the federal agent remains in charge of the execution of the search. Private citizens can also help the federal agents as long as the private citizens are serving a legitimate investigation function. You also have concent to search that are made by law enforcement officers based on concent of the person whom live in the property. This is the most common form of warrantless search and a search warrant or probable cause is not necessary if consent is given by someone with proper …show more content…

Grant who was arrested in Tucson, Arizona police arrested him and charged him with driving under a suspended license. Police arrested him in a friend’s backyard after he parked the vehicle and was walking away. Grant an all other suspects in the scene where arrested. The officers then searched Grant’ vehicle and found a weapon with a bag of cocaine. Then They charged him with possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. In the case officers received an anonymous tip that drugs were being sold from a residence , then they knocked on that door, and Rodney Gant opened. He told officers that he did not own the home but he expected the homeowner to come soon. Using the strategy of traffic violations in hopes of getting a free search for evidence of other crimes, police officers conducted a license check, and found Gant license was suspended. When Gant returned he was arrested for driving under a suspended license then they conducted a search of his automobile in which they found a gun and cocaine in a jacket. Gant argued that the search of his automobile was not justified as a search incident to arrest because he was handcuffed, not within reaching distance of the automobile, and because he had been arrested for a traffic offense for which no evidence could be found in the

Show More
Related

  • Commonwealth V. Newman Case Study

    157 Words  | 1 Pages

    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,

    Read More

  • Maryland Vs Pringle Case Study

    217 Words  | 1 Pages

    Facts: Police pull over a car with Joseph Pringle and two other people in the car, and Pringle was in the front seat of the car, when law enforcement officials search the car. Police officers discover in the car baggies of cocaine in the back seat of the car and $763 in the compartment up front. None of the three people in the car would confess to whom the drug belonged to and so all of them were arrested. When arriving at the police station Pringle admitted that the cocaine belong to him and then he was charged with intent to sell and possession of cocaine. Pringle then stated that there was no probable cause to arrest him, and the Maryland court system stated there was probable cause and proceed to convict him (Maryland v Pringle 540 U.S.

    Read More

  • Billy Greenwood And Dyanne Van Houten Summary

    602 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1988, California v. Billy Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten was about a suspecting of selling and using drugs in Mr. Greenwood house a narcotic officer told the man to bring her the trash bag which Greenwood had placed out the street for pick up, but as the officer search the bags she found drug paraphernalia which was used as evidence to convict Mr. Greenwood but the lower court revoked it because she search the trash bag without a warrant and that was a violation of the fourth amendment. but the trash bags was placed on the street were any child or animal can unseal it so he could not argue about his privacy if it was out in the police for anything or any person to expose the content of the bags but the court stated “ the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public “ this means

    Read More

  • Petitioner Vs. Joelis Jardines Case Study

    1901 Words  | 8 Pages

    The case Florida, Petitioner v. Joelis Jardines questions whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained drug-detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause (American Bar Association). The canine is being used as the use of surveillance in the investigation. The case begins with an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home of Joelis Jardines on November 3, 2006 (American Bar Association). On December 5, 2006, around 7:00 a.m., the Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a joint surveillance team to his home. Apart of the team is Detective Pedraja, whom watched the house for fifteen minutes.

    Read More

  • Terry Vs Ohio Case Study

    240 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Gift Cards Case Summary

    617 Words  | 3 Pages

    I, Judge Yen, find the evidence of the gift cards seized from Turner Round’s car inadmissible on the grounds of the violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Starting from the beginning, the stop that Officer Oliver Towns made of Mr. Round for a broken headlight is constitutional. Officer Towns verification of Round’s identity and vehicular history is also constitutional because it is an established police procedure. From verifying Mr. Round’s identity he discovered there was an active arrest warrant for the possession of marijuana and is allowed to arrest Mr. Round on those grounds. Although in the facts of the case, it is never explicitly stated that Mr. Round was arrested and read his Miranda rights, it is objectively clear that he is under arrest since Officer Towns placed Mr. Round in the back of

    Read More

  • Essay On 4th Amendment

    962 Words  | 4 Pages

    The 4th 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.” In the context of the 4th amendment, a search is considered or happens, “when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Ryan) An example of a search under the 4th amendment is forms of searches such as stip searches or visual body searches but they have to be supported by a probable cause and be conducted in a reasonable matter. A seizure of an individual under the 4th amendment means or happens , “when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the encounter, that the person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will.”

    Read More

  • Wolf V. Colorado Case Brief

    584 Words  | 3 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Dk Dbq Analysis

    742 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Fourth Amendment Pros And Cons

    1139 Words  | 5 Pages

    Consisting of two prongs, (1) home, the validation of the place and intention of the search, and (2) expectation of privacy, whether or not the officers trespassed on the property and used the dog illegitimately, allows for the analysis of the Fourth Amendment and the determination of a violation thereof. Using case law from cases such as Katz v. United States, United States v. Jones, and Kyllo v. United States, each prong of this test is carefully analyzed and easily supported. Thus, using the logic in the creation of the majority opinion proves to be the strongest analysis of the case developing a clear and concise answer to whether or not a dog sniffing for drugs outside a home is a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment of the

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On The Fourth Amendment

    427 Words  | 2 Pages

    To begin, we need to understand the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment was created to prevent the government from breaching into our homes and convicting us of crimes based on evidence they discover within our homes. It was vital to state unreasonable searches in the constitution, and an unreasonable search is a search done without

    Read More

  • Importance Of The Fourth Amendment To The United States

    670 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of the personal residences of citizens, and also outlines the right to privacy that is awarded to citizens of the United States. 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 being seized. Even after the ratification of the Fourth Amendment, it was permissible for evidence that was seized and collected without a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be admissible in court. This remained the common practice until 1914.

    Read More

  • Fourth Amendment Definition

    361 Words  | 2 Pages

    Everyday people are accused of doing things they did or didn’t do and police go through their things, the fourth amendment protects people from being searched. The fourth amendment has helped many people in the U.S.A. everyday. Its meaning and purpose is to protect U.S. citizens belongings. Which has an enduring impact on lots of peoples lives.

    Read More

  • The Privacy Of The Fourth Amendment

    270 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.” To me, this means, in order for the American people to feel that they and their belongings are safe, only an official sworn into office can issue a warrant. This warrant can also be issued with probable cause, or reasonable belief, that some crime has been committed. Upon issuance of said warrant, the sworn official must specify exactly where police are allowed to search and the exact things or people they are allowed to look for and take in their investigation.

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Automobile Search

    1130 Words  | 5 Pages

    Automobile searches and many other types of searches and seizures are protected by the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment to the constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches can only be justifiable if provided a warrant, probable cause, supported by oath of or affirmations. Automobile searches are an important aspect when it comes to police work. Without the ability to conduct warrantless searches on vehicles, the ability to get away with a crime while in a motor vehicle very easy and would become a simple and typical task in the criminal world.

    Read More

More about Supreme Court Case Analysis

Open Document