Anthony Gore's 2004 Nissan Maxima

In the beginning of chapter one, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Florida v. J.L, a police officer may not search individuals based merely on an anonymous tip. The anonymous tip received was that a black man standing at a bus stop was carrying a concealed firearm. Out of the three black men at the bus stop, they searched the man wearing the plaid shirt, as described in the tip. Although public safety issues were recognized, the conviction was overturned. This unlawful search violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which states, in simpler terms, that the police cannot search an individual or take their property without probable cause.

The Supreme Court opinion regarding the actions the officer took in using excessive force was reasonable under the circumstances that Victor Harris had put other drivers and law enforcement officers in danger and concluded that Deputy Scott did not violate the constitutional rights by the use of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

that the suspects were armed. The court found that the frisk was reasonable under the Fourth

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

In establishing a § 1983 claim the claimant must first determine which constitutional right was violated. In this case, Dave Douglas, Taylor Reveley, and George Walkers claims fall under the Fourth Amendment because they have not been arrested or detained for pretrial. Each plaintiff will argue that the police officers seized them unreasonably and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. First, the claimant must establish that the government actor was acting under “the color of law.” In this case, the police officers were acting in their official capacity as on-duty cops. HotCop, as a possible contractor with law enforcement may also operate under the color of law and therefore be subject to suit as well. This will be addressed further later in the memo. Each potential plaintiff and the possible defenses to their claims is addressed below.

Procedure:     Garner’s father brought the action the police officer took in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, looking for violations that were made of Garner’s constitutional rights. The complaint was alleged that the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After a three day trial, the District Court entered judgement for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon’s actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment require that police officers, when arresting someone who was an occupant in a vehicle, show either a threat to officer safety or a need to protect evidence related to the crime they are being arrested for make it legal for an officer to conduct a search of that vehicle without a search warrant?

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, every person has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. When assessing whether or not a police officer’s successful use of force, deadly or not, is justified the Courts use the objective reasonableness standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (U.S. 1989). The Court in Graham established that a Court must look at the force used by the officer (1) from the perspective of a reasonable officer with same or similar training and experience, (2) the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied, (3) the facts known to the officer without regard to

Good evening Angela, great post. Another case that is simialar to the Burdeau case concerning unlawful searches and seizureis the Mapp V. Ohio. At the point when an individual does not have a "sensible desire of protection" that society will recognize in a specific bit of property, any obstruction by the administration as to that property is not viewed as a look for Fourth Amendment purposes, and a warrant is never required. For instance, courts have found that a man does not have a sensible desire of security in data exchanged to an outsider, for example, composing on the outside of an envelope sent through the mail or left for get in a zone where others may see it. While that does not imply that the individual has no sensible desire of security

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

The assertion that is most often declared in opposition to police is the act of false apprehension. The people that bring this claim to the forefront claim that police intentionally dishonored their Fourth Amendment right in contradiction of arbitrary confiscation. If the officer had a likely cause to consider the individual had committed an offense or misdeed, the arrest is rational and the Fourth Amendment has not been breached. Police also have the ability to arrest with no warrant for a felony or misdemeanor that is perpetrated in their presence (Polluck, 2004). Even if the information the officer depended on later turns out to be incorrect, the officer is not held responsible if he believed it was correct at the time that the arrest took place.