Antoine Jones Vs Us Case Study

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search

Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is

The Court faced the question of whether the search of Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

His report found that almost all his offending was based on his methamphetamine usage. Mr Jones also pleaded guilty to all the crimes committed and therefore was able to receive a 30 % reduction according to the sentencing act. This allowed Mr Jones to save the court money for legal proceedings and therefore is rewarded by pleading guilty with a 30 % reduction. Judge Beazley also sentenced Mr Jones in pursuant to 18A in the sentencing act which consolidates all the crimes to make one sentence for all the crimes combined. Under the controlled substance act 52 E the drugs that the police seized are

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. the United States, to revise the Fourth Amendment “unreasonable searches and seizures,” to cover electronic wiretaps. (Iannacci, 2015) Charles Katz a handicap basketball player conducting illegal gambling bets using three outside telephone booth (pay phones) nearby his residence to place and receive bets from gamblers. The FBI caught onto Katz’s operation, so they decided to bug the telephone booths pending investigation using the wiretaps. Katz was later detained for recorded conversations of conducting an organized illegal gambling operation. Katz defense was that the FBI surveillance on the phone booths was unconstitutional. Katz argued that his Fourth Amendment had been violated because the phone booth was made of glass, leaving him visible to the outside world with an uninvited ear should be protected under the Fourth Amendment because it’s a way of private communication. However, the clause that applies to all

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths (Brief for Respondent 3). In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search warrant. While the Petitioner would like the answer to be yes in both cases,

The United States Constitution affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always

Having reviewed the case Hurry V. Jones 734 F.2d 879 (1st Cir. 1984), at first reading of the case and with my novice awareness of the law I am seriously concerned as to why this ever went to court. IDEA and the constitution of the United States guarantee that students will receive a free public education no matter what their handicaps. The District should have provided some method by which this student could be educated. I am aware that people exceeding George’s weight are regularly transported to varying places if not by bus, by ambulance and other vehicles. A student like George needs all of the education

The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights ensures Americans the right to be secure in their homes from government intrusion. Essentially, an officer cannot enter the place of residence of an individual without probable cause or a search warrant. However, with the advances in technology, the government is able to use GPS technology to gain information on certain criminal prospects without probable cause. This is considered unlawful in regards to what the Fourth Amendment stands for. Even under the current law, it still comes to the matter of question if this type of scrutiny was done in a public or private area. However, the Supreme Court issued a statement that devices that contain GPS tracking capabilities are acceptable on a public

Since its inception, the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution have been expanding and evolving because of new technology. The Fourth Amendment generally protects us all from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, n.d., p. 1199). Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Riley v. California highlight how new technology can lead to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that alter the protections provided by this amendment (Hall, 2015). In 1968, the Supreme Court decision in Katz v. United States fundamentally changed the measure used to judge whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurs due to new technology being utilized by law enforcement. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of Riley v. California is a more relatable case, since it involves technology that the vast majority of us use everyday (Savage, 2014). This case changed the way law enforcement is able to legally search the cellphone of an arrestee, by strengthening the arrestee’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court stated they did not need to address the government’s arguments because Jones rights did not rise or fall with the Katz law.” Justice Scalia stated that the “Court should preserve, at minimum, the degree of privacy afforded to individuals at the time the Amendment was adopted.” ( Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d

The United States district court for the District of Columbia is where the case first started. From there it went to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. After being trialed in the District of Columbia court of Appeals, in August of 2010 it went to the United States Supreme Court. The District of Columbia had original jurisdiction in the case and first trial Jones in 2006 where the jury returned with a guilty verdict on one count of conspiracy to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute 5 or more kg of cocaine and 50 more grams of cocaine base. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled out Jones’s conviction because the data that was transmitted from the device that was implanted on Jones’s vehicle was not submersible in

Charles Katz entered a telephone booth, closed the door, and made a telephone call to place an unlawful gambling wager. The FBI suspecting illegal transmission and had unbeknownst to Katz attached a recording device outside the phone booth to ease drop and record his telephone conversation. Katz was convicted on an eight-count indictment based on the recordings captured from the recording box. He challenged his conviction based on his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the FBI. The Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit which upheld the conviction on the grounds that there was no physical intrusion. The Court ruled with Katz stating the FBI had violated his reasonable expectation of privacy.