Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Essays

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

basement under the Ohio Revised Code section then in effect. To which amendment to the constitution does the case relate? Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court stating that the 4th Amendment should be incorporated. The 4th Amendment prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures, and during Mapp’s arrest, the police came to the founding of the evidence presented in the trial without a warranty. Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers

Our founding fathers created the Bill Of Rights which are the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. One of the most important amendments is the Fourth Amendment. It 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

This is one of many exceptions to the 4th Amendment. Additional exceptions exist and have been accepted in exclusive circumstances. These exceptions are search incident to an arrest, plain view, stop and frisk (plain feel), hot pursuit/ exigent circumstance, and the automobile exception. The plain

Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional. On August 22, 2009, the police stopped

The Fourth Amendment is “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.” In other words, it is against the law for police to search any person without probable cause and an issued warrant. (Cartoon Surveillance) This protects the privacy of the innocent people that may not be considered guilty. However, giving the people a right to a warrant

noticeably short visits conducive to drug activity. Officer Fackrell observed respondent Edward Strieff exit the home, followed him to a local convenience store, and stopped the man without articulable reasonable suspicion, a requirement of the Fourth Amendment. During this unlawful investigatory stop, Officer Fackrell requested that Strieff provide identification. Upon Strieff’s compliance, Officer Fackrell ran a warrants check and discovered that Strieff had an outstanding warrant

he wanted the evidence that was found on him thrown out. Terry had felt that the evidence that was found on him violated his Fourth Amendment; which is the people’s right against search and seizures. In an eight to one decision, the court had decided that McFadden, the police officer, had enough probable cause to search him and that it did not violate the Fourth Amendment. After Terry was convicted with three years in jail, he filed with the Supreme Court of appeals. The court had found that the

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

In this paper, I argue against Government Surveillance. Although a society full of cameras could help solve some crimes, it is also true that the Constitution, through the fourth amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Despite the fact that this is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law should be monitored. In addition, increasing political surveillance with the excuse of protection against

the charges of carrying a concealed weapon, the prosecution filed a motion for the suppression of the recovered guns as evidence citing that the manner in which the evidence was obtained was unlawful and inadmissible in court as a result. Terry v. State of Ohio (1968) was a landmark case for addressing the constitutionality of a common police practice across the country- the stop and frisk tactic-

As some of us might know there has been a passionate debate on the issue of the net neutrality in which there is strong feelings on both sides of the debate. Net neutrality is the idea government should regulate the internet so that the major telecommunications companies won’t be able to turn the internet landscape into a monopoly. This paper will examine both sides of the net neutrality debate in which the content of this paper will explore both the pro and cons of net neutrality. At the end of

Negative Effects of Technology Dependency Taylor Pressley Fort Hayes State University Negative effects of Technology Dependency In the contemporary world, people are working hard and consistently to improve technology to perform various tasks efficiently and fast. Over the past few years, the technological advancement has helped people develop significant infrastructures and achieve remarkable progress. As a result, this technological advancement has offered profound benefits which include improved

Name: Terry v. Ohio 392 US1 Supreme Court 1968 Facts: The incident occurred on October 31st 1963 at approximately 2:30pm in the afternoon. The police officer who was dressed in plain clothes was attracted by Terry and Chilton who were casing a store. With 30 years of prior experience in the area. The officer knew casing when he saw it. He had been assigned to that area specifically in search for shoplifters and pick pockets. It was apparent that these men are in fact casing. It is stated that they

Here, the court will most likely find that Officer Givens legitimately stopped Mr. Crowder. First, the anonymous informant is likely to be deemed reliable by the court given the content in the tip. Like the informant in Hood, the anonymous informant provided specific information identifying Mr. Crowder, the blue pickup, and the destination where Mr. Crowder was stopped. The informant was also able to provide information about a third party, as the informant in Hood did, in this case the presence

Watching Eyes Uh-oh, there’s another person getting pulled over again by the police. What did they do? Well that is answered by both the officer and the dash camera video the officer’s car provides. But what about when the officer steps out of their vehicle and approaches the person who is being pulled over? Well then the officer’s car is still viewing the stopped car and the officer. The officers have microphones that let the video also have a recording of what the officer is saying while they

minorities. Criminal profiling is a high-profile issue facing law enforcement, due to criticisms about how profiling’s were carried out. Difference in police exists. Whether profiling is the exception or the rule, it is highly debated across the United States. Criminal profiling “is the ability of police officials to come to logical conclusions based upon the totality of circumstances related to indicators or certain criminal activity and/or behavior.” (Scism, 2016) Criminal profiling

On 4/12/17 at 2230 hours I was monitoring traffic on the 100 block of S. Main St. A male exited his vehicle and informed there was a male walking in the middle of the road on State Route 924 near the transfer station. I went to the area and located the male walking alongside the road near the Gold Star Plaza. I pulled my patrol vehicle in front of the male and made contact with him. I asked the male if everything was ok, the male stated he was out for a walk to get away from his girlfriend

The Tennessee statute (T.C.A. 40-17-108) state that “after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.” The Memphis Police Department’s policy had similar limits, however still allowed the

represents observation, reach, control or touch the property. However, Lake argued that he didn’t took the car with her presence, which means that she could not see or touch the car. But he took the keys in her presence. At this point, Clarke and Croaker states that they both were scared that Lake would shoot them or to cause a harm. Therefore, the rational jury responded to that by that Croaker could have the ability to prevent the defendant from taking her car if she had not been frightened that Lake will