Case Study Of Deputy Sanderson

There are two cases that are being compared; New Jersey v. T.L.O. and Safford v. Redding. The rulings in both of these cases were just. In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O. the defendant (T.L.O.) was found guilty for smoking cigarettes and for possessing drug paraphernalia in her purse. In court, her lawyer argued that the way that her purse was searched, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since she was a delinquent and her rights were not, in fact, violated, she was sentenced to probation for one year. In the Safford v. Redding case the defendant was strip-searched for ibuprofen by her school officials, which was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She was proven innocent from her charges and in turn, she filed suit against her school district and the school officials involved in the case. Redding claimed that her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Both cases have a few things in common as well as many differences.

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).

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

Case Issue: Does the use of a narcotics detection dog during the course of a routine traffic stop violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures?

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

And yes like all citizens the fourth amendment does apply to all, but if the officer had to impound the vehicle, the marijuana would have been found and an added charges would have implied to stoddard

If I had been a justice on the Supreme Court, I would have to say that the major problem with this case is that Albert Leon should not use the fourth amendment as a way to help him in this particular case because I feel that the police officers did have enough evidence and support to issue a search warrant. The police officers were just trying to do their job and used a search warrant to Albert Leon’s house, which they found a large amount of illegal drugs. I would have to say that would have been enough evidence for me to see that Leon should go to jail and be punished for even having illegal drugs in his possession. The police officers had done more investigation and found out that Leon has been arrested before in 1980. Leon’s lawyer felt

The defendant, Jim through his lawyer, has the right to appeal for another hearing of his case in a supreme court. When a state court decision is not satisfactory to the defendant because of lack of reasonable explanation, the defendant can ask for clarification for the decision made. The search and seizure of illegal drugs in Mr. Jim’s house was by nature illegal. To begin with the officers were acting on an invalid search warrant which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and a police misconduct. The Fourth Amendment was implemented to guard the citizen's privacy rights and restricts the police against unreasonable searches and seizures. For this reason, the drugs seized at Jim’s house should not be used as evidence to convict him. Jim

The forceful entry into Jasper Scump’s residence, search of his person and car without a warrant violated his fourth amendment rights to be secure in his persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

2) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer pulled Mr. Hightower based on unreasonable suspicion and no probable cause. Mr. Hightower from Metropolis drove a late model Corvette at around 3 am down Main Street does not arouse suspicion to a reasonable person. In addition, the arresting officer did not witness Mr. Hightower commit any traffic violation or any crime and it is legal to drive around the city at 3 am. The officer violated Mr. Hightower’s Fourth Amendment right of protection of unlawful

The fourth amendment prohibits any search and seizures on a person without a warrant to give the right to privacy. No probable cause is needed for a search and frisk. In Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Circuit the defendant was arrested because he refused to give up his identity. The court found that it was necessary for the person to give up their identity because it can inform the police if that person has a mental illness, is wanted for something else, or can clear their name. In Illinois v. Wardlow the defendant ran away when he thought the police were trying to catch him for narcotics in a high crime area. The court believed that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the unprovoked flight. This case is similar because both the defendant ran

In an earlier decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in, Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948) acknowledged that “the officer did not have probable cause to make an arrest until he entered the room where he detected the odor of burning opium.” The Court also stated, “The warrantless search could not be sustained as being incident to a valid arrest and that it violated the Fourth Amendment.” The police were not authorized to breakdown the door, but were constitutionally required to present what they knew at that time to an independent magistrate to determine whether the police possessed probable cause to issue a warrant. The Courts also acknowledged in Mincey v. Arizona, 437, U.S. 385, 394, (1948), that “searches of a home are presumed unreasonable except when “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

I believe that when there is suspicion of me doing anything illegal then the 4th amendment is not invading my right to privacy. With the audio story i believe the officer is not doing anything extremely wrong he had suspicion and he checked Tyler McNeely for alcohol in his body and he found, I don't think he needs warrant because what is their to lose if you didn't do anything wrong then there is no problem but if you did then face the consequences.

In the state of California, police officers may enter someone’s home without a warrant to arrest those who are suspected of driving under the influence. A dissenting justice stated that majorities handed authorities a free pass to unlawfully enter private homes and arrest mortals without warrants. Under the Fourth Amendment authorities are not allowed to enter a home and make an arrest without a warrant unless there is an exigent circumstance. In this case, Justice Marvin Baxter had written that the lost of evidence at issue was obtaining a measurement of the suspects blood alcohol level. Baxter also added what a contrary ruling would allow the corruption of evidence that occurs when the suspect takes advantage of any delay to ingest more alcohol

Deputy Bruce Pierson, a police officer from California, was recently called to the Promenade Mall in Temecula after receiving a call about a woman acting suspiciously in the parking lot. He told Fox5 that when he arrived on the scene, he noticed the woman ducking behind cars in the parking lot and trying to hide from his view. Pierson approached her and asked her what she was doing, and to his surprise, the woman lifted up her feet and told him she had been walking around barefoot for over two months. Pierson said that the woman's feet were extremely dirty and covered in calluses. The woman told him that she was ducking behind the cars to seek relief from the hot pavement.