Essay on Arizona vs Gant: The Fourth Ammendment and Search Warrants

Facts: On August22, 2009, While David Leon Riley was driving, the police officer stopped him because he noticed that Riley is driving with an expired registration tags. At the same time, the police officer found that Riley’s license is suspended. Which led the officer to seize his car in order to turn it to the department policy. However, while passing through the process of impounding the car another police officer was searching in Riley’s car and suddenly found two handguns under the hood. As a result, Riley was arrested. After searching about Riley occurrence and situation, an officer found that Riley has some items that are related to a gangs and bloods the officer took Riley’s cell phone “a smart phone” from his pocket and search inside the phone, the officer found picture of Riley in front of a car that was used in a crime scene “shooting”, so based on that Riley was charged that he involved in that crime. However, Riley restrained The State Alleged which is an enhanced sentence according to the crimes the cave been committed to Riley, he restrained that because the officer violets Fourth Amendment which is prohibiting searching or seizing without a warrant. Finally, the trail court

INTRODUCTION: In Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the question of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was brought before the court system. The case looked at the admissibility of evidence discovered during search and seizure, in particular, as it relates to street encounters and investigations between citizens and officers of the law. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the decision of the 5th Ohio Court of Appeals. This case was of particular importance it helped establish what type of search and seizure behavior was lawful and unlawful on the part of officers, and set clear guidelines. The rulings in this case pertain to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).

In the case of Brinegar v. United States, the petitioner claimed that the arresting officer violated his 4th amendment rights and illegally search his car. In the search and siezure the officer found that the petitioner was transporting intoxicating liquor into Oaklahoma, which is a direct violation of law. The courts found that the arresting office had arrested the petitioner on the same violation several months earlier and this was enough reasonable cause to conduct the search ans seizure.

The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current

Search incident to Lawful Arrest- if an individual happens to be arrested lawfully they are no longer a free citizen therefore a police officer may search their persons and any areas that are within their reach. An example can be Mary is arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. She was stopped after swerving through the road and going at a very slow speed. A search of her vehicle found narcotics in the passenger side of the vehicle. She was herself and that was within her wingspan.

The Government argued the defendants’ Fourth Amendment not violated under the constitutional because the parked vehicle was at a public lot. In some States, the Government has the authority to allow police officers to search a vehicle without the necessity of warrant. “...as long as a state is deciding law based upon its interpretation of its own constitution, the state can be more restrictive than the Supreme Court. However, if the state is interpreting the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, then they must follow the body of law established by the United States Supreme Court”(Policelink). The Government believes the attachment of the monitoring device for search was a responsible forfeiting act. As well as wiretapping the defendants cellular to help them enforce a predominantly well prepared investigation.

The fourth amendment stops the police from unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that the police cannot search or take your items without a reason. If the police pulls you over and searches your car without a reason, then they are violating the fourth amendment and could be punished for it. Police can easily avoid this amendment, but it can still be enforced if they do not give a logical or reasonable reason for searching your items.

On his website, a Utah DUI Attorney, David Rosenbloom speaks about violations of the Fourth Amendment.  He states that police officers “pay little attention to the fourth amendment… [because] it is not a self-enforcing right, such as the freedom of speech” (Rosenbloom).  In short, if a citizen believes his or her rights were violated and they were illegally searched/things were seized from them, they must “ask a court to examine the case and apply the fourth

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

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).

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.

While searching an automobile there is a different standard. For example, in the case Chimel v. California, the automobile was a ?movable scene of crime.? Evidence could be gone by the time a warrant could be issued. In California v. Acevedo, 1991, the court set down a rule that covers all automobile searches. It was ruled that, ?when ever police lawfully stops a car, they do not need a warrant to search anything in that vehicle that they do not have a reason to believe holds evidence of a crime.? (Grolier Encyclopedia)

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.