California V. Hodari Case Summary

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

The defendant moved to suppress the cocaine and inculpatory statements in District Court. Suppression was granted as a fruit of the poisonous tree under the exclusionary rule. The Court of Appeals upheld the motion with the claim that private security officers were 'state actors'. The Supreme Court upheld that the

The Fourth Amendment states, '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

The California Court of Appeal found the warrantless search was justified by Rojas’s written and verbal consent. The court agreed with the majority of the federal circuits, in that, this case was “indispensable to the decision in Randolph.” The decision was ultimately concluded that a tenant’s objection has no force if he or she is not physically present. Therefore held, the warrantless search was lawful because Rojas; a co-tenant, consented. Fernandez was denied review in the California Court of Appeal, however certiorari was granted.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

In the case of Lobato v. the State of Nevada, it is hard to see how someone could be convicted with evidence that does not make very much sense at all. My groups responsibility was to cover the prosecution side and five pieces of evidence of the case using the information from the news article by Joshua Longobardy titled, “Kirsten Blaise Lobato is accused in a gruesome slaying. Did she do it?”. Upon the detective arriving to the scene of the crime, they removed the debris that covered the body from complete view. This debris included a full sheet of cardboard with a bloody footprint on it and a clear plastic bag wrapped around the groin region. Once this was removed it was discovered that the penis had been sliced off from the base, as well as six of his teeth were found near his body. After several days they were able to identify the man as Duran Bailey, a 44-year-old black male. Another piece of evidence recovered at first with Baileys personal belongings was a piece of chewed gum. When the detectives called Lobato in for questioning, she gave them a statement of how she pulled a knife on a man who tried to attack her. This statement however was for a completely different altercation than what the police were questioning for. Other evidence that came into question were the tire impressions near the entrance of the enclosure, fingerprints lifted from the dumpster, and a foreign piece of hair on Baileys groin region. The argument being made from

1. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution says, “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.”

The fourth amendment gives people the right to not get illegally search. In other words someone can’t just run up to you and search you they have to have a good reason too search you.. The fourth amendment however is not guaranteed against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

All Americans are entitled to their rights. The Fourth Amendment states that we the people have to deny search and seizures from law enforcement without a warrant. The fourth amendment generally prohibits police from entering a home without a warrant unless the circumstances fit an established exception to the warrant requirement. According to the book The Constitution: Our Written Legacy by Joseph A. Melusky, the Fourth Amendment gives the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although we are entitled to these rights, police sometimes use and abuse their authority. In many cases, the Fourth Amendment has helped prove the innocence of one’s actions.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution applies to a person and their home by providing protection against unreasonable seizures and searches. While it provides protection, not every search and seizure can be deemed unreasonable unless it is classified as per the law, by determining whether there was: a) the level of intrusion of the individuals Fourth Amendment, and b) whether or not it pertains to the government’s interest, such as safety of the public.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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.

The Fourth Amendment stops the government from conducting unreasonable search and seizures. Law enforcement can conduct a search if they have probable cause without the courts approval. There are times when the law enforcement must go to the courts to get a search warrant before the can search and seize.

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

The Fourth Amendment requires that all search and seizures be must be reasonable and if they are considered unreasonable that would violate the Fourth Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment it is stipulated the prohibition of unreasonable search and seizures without a warrant but there are six exemptions that can constitute a search and seizure without a warrant. The first exception that is stipulated that does not require the use of warrant is if the person is arrested in a way that is permissible under the law then the use of a warrant is not necessary and the person can be searched as well as the area around them can also be searched without a warrant.