United States V. Place Case Study

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges.

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.

The Fourth Amendment was formally sanctioned in 1791 as a direct response to the Writs of Assistance. These were search warrants issued by courts to assist the British government in enforcing trade and navigation laws. The warrants authorized officers to search any house for smuggled goods without specifying either the house or the goods. The Fourth Amendment was proposed to stop this and 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 laymen terms, this amendment prevented officers to search people’s property without their consent, or the approval of a judge.

Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance. Issues The issue to be determined in this case is “Did the officer 's seizure of the drugs violate Chrisman 's "reasonable expectation of privacy" guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment?” Holdings

This case is regarded as one of the influential cases in the interpretation of fourth amendment. In this case, police took drug dogs to Jardines’ front porch to begin a preliminary search. The dogs then gave a positive alert for drugs, this gave the police probable cause

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.

As illegal drug use have become a nationwide problem, public employers, like fire departments, are testing employees for illegal drug use. Fire departments want to keep a drug free environment but they must be aware of the legal aspects that limit their power to test for illegal drugs. In The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the privacy of individuals against random and unreasonable intrusions by the government. As such, fire departments must only test employees for drug use in compliance with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

The fourth amendment secures the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures, if there are no probable cause or certain issue, then it cannot be touched. In addition, if evidence is found that an illegal search has happened,

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect

The Fourth Amendment explicitly states and gives “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” (Smentkowski, 2017). This amendment was designed to protect all citizens, whether or not they fall into the criminally accused category, from unreasonable searches done by the government and police. We are granted personal privacy within a reasonable expectation in our own “persons, homes, papers, and effects” from the government, but this privacy must also be balanced against the government’s interest of public

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

In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous. October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden, age 62, saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue and acting in a way the officer thought was suspicious. Detective McFadden watch these two guys going back and forward doing the same routine about a dozen times staring in the same store window. Next, Detective McFadden saw another third person join in the transaction named Katz exchanging words casing out the store front and Katz walking away.

Several exceptions to the Fourth amendment have been made over the past several decades, with some being understandable and others being questionable. Consenting to a search results in not needing a warrant, though this poses many exceptions and complications, i.e. the scope of the consent given, whether consent is voluntarily specified, or whether a person has the right to consent to a search of another's property. Another understandable exception is the “plain view” doctrine, where an officer (acting in legal presence) can seize plain view objects. The stipulation to this is that the officer must have had probable clause that the objects seized are contraband. Exigent circumstances, where it would be harmful or impractical to obtain a warrant