Brief Re Illegal Search and Seizure

Search and seizure has been a big issue in USA. According to the law, the Bill of rights actually provides individual guarantees, in the fourth amendment’s against unwarranted searches and seizures. But there were some exceptions. (DLK) v. United States was one of them. They did broke the violation of fourth amendment’s law, but that doesn’t mean they went too far at the case. It just had some strong evidence like the Carroll case. Therefore, I believe that the government should use the new technology.

What if police could barge into any house whenever they feel like it? In a world like this, citizens would have no privacy. People would have to be on alert 24/7 in case any unwelcomed visitors invited themselves inside without permission. The Background Essay: Search and Seizure: Did the Government Go Too Far? notes that the British government would inspect colonists’ houses for certain goods. In order to avoid such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment states that a search warrant and a reasonable cause is required before any government official is allowed to search another’s belongings. However, in some dire situations, a search warrant is not necessary. The Background Essay gives the examples, “…hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and/or permission of the suspect,” for when police do not need to worry about taking the time to receive a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is open to interpretation. As a result, there is a collection of various cases that need to be addressed that involve search and seizure. Such as the case of DLK. In this case, DLK’s house was searched by federal government officials with a thermal imager, which senses warmth, because he was suspected of growing marijuana. The question proposed is whether the use of such high-tech tools, like the thermal imager, count as a “search”. In a situation such as this, it is safe to say that the government went too

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

am writing this essay on the 4th amendment search and seizure. First of all there was a guy named James Madison, who funny enough became the 4th U.S President, and he also dropped the idea of the 4th amendment. Then after he dropped that idea, the Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who also became a president later, made it a thing. There was a guy named Potter Stewart who was the judge in the court case of Katz vs. the United States, which means that was the case that prevented security cameras from invading your space. If the police, or whomever

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

These exceptions are indeed consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure for the previously stated reasons. With regards to open field searches the court finds that the Fourth Amendment only protects the privacy of the individual and their property within a close proximity to the curtilage of their home. Warrantless search of an open field amounts to little more than trespassing rather than a violation of a constitutional right. With regards to the search of objects in plain view. The court has held that objects in plain view have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy simply, and clearly because of the fact that the owner of these personal effects has not afforded the kind of privacy over these

Many of the Bill of Rights can be used as provisions that protect the individuals who try and influence politics. Two provisions I am going to choose are the First Amendment and search and seizure.

Maryland police officers pulled a vehicle over for speeding at approximately 3am on 7 August 1999. The police officers found three men in the vehicle. The driver was Donte Partlow, the front seat passenger and defendant Joseph Pringle, and the backseat passenger Otis Smith. One of the police officers asked the owner and driver of the vehicle for his license and registration. When Partlow opened the glove box, the police officer observed a large amount of money in the glove box. The police officer checked for outstanding warrants and issued Partlow a warning. Then the officer asked for permission to search his vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle the police officer found the money he had seen earlier as well as five baggies of cocaine in-between the armrest and back seat. All three occupants in the vehicle were questioned and denied any knowledge or ownership of the cocaine. Subsequently all three men were arrested and brought back to the police station for questioning. Pringle waived his rights after being given a Miranda warning and confessed that the cocaine was his and he intended to sell it. He claimed that the other occupants in the vehicle had no knowledge of the drugs. At trial, Pringle moved to suppress his confession, claiming that it was the result of an illegal arrest. The court denied his motion, and

When is a search and seizure reasonable? John Vile clearly explains the origination of the Fourth Amendment and why it was created at the time of the creation of the Constitution, ¨Like the amendment that precedes it, the Fourth Amendment was largely motivated by abuses of the British when they ruled America. They had used general warrants, or so-called writs of assistance, in tracking down customs violations in the colonies. A number of states subsequently adopted provisions against such warrants, and ratifying conventions in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina all proposed amendments dealing with the subject¨(Vile). At first, the forefathers of our country created the Fourth Amendment so that the British could not infringe on the colonists privacy. The thought of privacy within schools was not even something that was of concern at the time of the creation of the Constitution. As time has gone on, our country has made advancements that our founding fathers could never have foreseen, and has left our current government to interpret the Fourth Amendment themselves. The Fourth Amendment is detrimental when it comes to someone’s privacy, especially in a school environment. It is valuable to students and teachers alike, without it teachers and staff members would be able to search a student’s belongings without a reason or warrant. The Fourth Amendment is definitely viable in the school environment because it places regulations on what the staff in the schools can do without

Defendant tried to suppress or have the evidence found in the apartment thrown out, because he believe those evidence

Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Juan Vera, appeared representing the applicant’s interest. Court reporting duties were provided by Ms. Elizabeth Maeyama, License No. 12060. Interpreting services were provided by Ms. Berta ZeFrench, Certification No. 36353581. The deposition started at approximately 2:24 p.m. and lasted until 3:15 p.m. The applicant testified that she arrived at applicant’s attorney’s office at 1:00 p.m. to prepare for her deposition; therefore, I anticipate applicant’s attorney’s office’s §5710 invoice to be for no more than two hours and 15 minutes. I will make a more specific recommendation regarding the yet to

When asked, the defendant first stated that the plastic container contained "crack that belonged to her friend." The substance was then tested and was positive for cocaine (trace amounts). The test was conducted using a field presumptive

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

Watson, upon the pat down of Mr. Watsons’ person, officer Johnson found a “hand carved pipe with a golf ball size bowl and a five inch long pipe’ which officer Johnson believed was being used for smoking marijuana. Officer Johnson then handcuffed and placed Watson into the back seat of his patrol car and went to remove the keys from the Watson vehicle to check the trunk for the kidnapped three year old child, upon opening the trunk of the Fiat sports coupe car, Johnson found a cellophane wrapped package that looks to contain marijuana. Officer Johnson returned to his patrol car and informed Watson that he was under arrest for the Possession of Marijuana with the intent to distribute a controlled drug substance.

It was a dark and stormy night when the woman entered my office. Ms. Silverfox slinked into the room, legs up to here. I was reclining on my chair smoking a cigar when the Broad slapped a wad of bills on my table. By eight o’clock she was done rambling about her case and it seemed like a easy fix. Little did I know this easy fix that pertained to her marriage annulment was covering much more than a cheating husband. I had been hired to go undercover in a covert investigation to find proof that her ex-husband had swindled her out of a million dollars.