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. The court argued that it is an individual right to keep information private and are protected regardless of the place they are in. In addition, they also mentioned if citizens have an “expectation of privacy” and society recognizes

unreasonable search and seizure by public sector officials. This is stated in the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The public sector cannot search personal belongings without probable cause, or in most situations a warrant. Vile cites (Vile,J,2010, A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments,p.141)," The Fourth Amendment thus begins by specifying that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures shall

Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified. In Aguilar v. Texas, it was held that “an affidavit based solely on the hearsay report of an unidentified informant must set forth "some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant

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 were pausing to stare in the same window about 24 times all followed by the same route. There was a third man associated with it as well. The

erred in denying the Motion to Suppress because the evidence obtained from Assante’s personal laptop resulted from an intrusive, non-routine border search conducted without reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right in people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .”U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Despite the Common Law Border Doctrine, people do not completely forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights even when searches

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 better words the amendment means it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a search warrant by a neutral judge. The history behind this amendment is it was introduced on December

As for personal and public safety, the Fourth Amendment is intended for people to have the right to be secured within their personal owning. People shall have the right to object from unreasonable search and seizures without a warrant, probable cause, and without the support from oath or affirmation. I think the Fourth Amendment is important because it definitely protects your right to give up anything that is your property and what you pay for. What’s yours is yours and people, as well as law enforcers

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

The exclusionary rule is a deterrent against searches and seizures. Any evidence that is gained through an illegal search or seizure is now inadmissible in criminal proceedings, per the exclusionary rule. Supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that it helps prevent illegal searches and seizures against law enforcement. Those against the exclusionary rule argue that the exclusionary rule keeps criminals out of jail and there are other preventative measures such as suspending police officers without

police car, he spotted the police car, made eye contact with one of the officers, and turned around and started walking in the other direction. The officer pulled the squad car into the alley and ordered Dickerson to stop and submit to a pat down search. The search revealed no weapons but did reveal a small plastic bag containing one fifth of

The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was very controversial. It changed how handle evidence and forced police officers to take special precautions when obtaining evidence. In the case of Mapp, Mapp 's attorneys argued that the obscene material found in Mapp’s house had been unlawfully seized and should not be allowed as evidence. Prior to Mapp’s trial the Supreme Court had ruled in Weeks vs the United States that illegally obtained evidence was not permissible in Federal Court. But did this

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. This case is freedom vs order argument. They say that the vice-principal had the constitutional right to search the bag,

Cedar’s Pub with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265). The accused deemed the search conducted by the RCMP

ten amendments of the United States. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress . Police officers and government employees may not search a person’s property unless they have a warrant. Some pros about the fourth amendment are privacy of citizens, secure property from

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". The 4th amendment was made based on the Founding Fathers experience with the Kings agents and the all purpose rit of assistances that they used abusively. Without the 4th amendment, we would be at the will of the police because they could come into our household, search anything

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". The 4th amendment was made based on the Founding Fathers ' experience with the Kings agents and the all purpose writ of assistances that they used abusively. Without the 4th amendment, we would be at the mercy of the police because they could come into our household, search anything

The law enforcement approached the residence 84 times without obtaining a search warrant. According to the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine, any evidence that is obtained from unreasonable searches cannot be presented in court against the defendant. I do believe that having a search warrant affects the outcome of this case. For example, if the officers could have put in the same effort to obtain a search as they did on disguising themselves, it could change the outcome of the

The fourth amendment prohibits, "unreasonable searches and seizures", and protects citizens' privacy within reasonable measures. Now, how does this tie into modern technology, and should the use of this information be considered a violation of people's constitutional right to privacy? Police should not be able to obtain information stored by personal devices or their carriers, as the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees privacy to the United States citizens. In that case that

the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The ruling of this case has impacted how law officials handle searches and the use of drug dogs. This case also challenged the boundary line of where personal property starts. 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

landmark case Arizona v. Hicks, the warrantless search of the stereo was unconstitutional because it was not immediately apparent that the stereo was stolen without the procedure following it. The plain view doctrine could be used to confirm that there were gift cards in the bag, but it does not validate the warrantless scan of the gift cards by Officer Towns. Also, the unconstitutional search of the cards done by Officer Towns leads to the unconstitutional search of the