Cell Tracking Case Summary

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

In the Supreme Court case “Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 1995,” the question before the court was whether or not “...random drug testing of high school athletes violates the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.”(“Vernonia School District.” [Oyez]). The case concerned the Fourth Amendment, which protects a person’s right to privacy and protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, a seventh-grade student, James Acton, claimed that the situation regarding a mandatory drug test in his school was an unreasonable search. Without doing the test, he was not allowed to join an athletic team. Although the court case changed its name order, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court trial was the Vernonia

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.

How does this source support your topic? It shows more examples of fourth amendment rights being violated.

A case involving a racial profiling victim by the name of Shoshanna Hebshi, a 36-year-old, half-Jewish, half-Arab woman from Ohio Filed a lawsuit against the FBI and other agencies after she was forcefully taken off of an airplane at the Metro Airport in Detroit, Michigan, involving racial profiling. She stated in a comment that she made with the media saying, "I was frightened and humiliated," said Hebshi, a freelance journalist and mother of 7-year-oldtwins. "As an American citizen and a mom, I'm really concerned about my children growing up in a country where your skin color and your name can put your freedom and liberty at risk at any time." Which leads to the question, how and why does racial profiling continue even

Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in Staten Island, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in North Charleston and, most recently, Freddie Gray in Baltimore have dominated the headlines this entire school year. These men and their stories provide the basis for claims of racially discriminatory treatment of African Americans at the hands of the police. It is true that each of the stories surrounding these men is different, but the one unifying theme is that police around the country are interpreting our Constitutional rights in a way that is insufficient to protect African Americans and the population in general. This paper will explore one Constitutional right— the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures--and examine how one Supreme Court decision that narrowed the scope of the 4th Amendment and unintentionally created a mechanism by which the rights of citizens could be unfairly impeded by police.

I was recently asked to provide some prospective on a lawsuit that was filed in federal district court alleging first amendment violations against the former Sheriff of El Paso County, Terry Maketa, former Undersheriff, Paula Presley, as well as, the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners. It brings up a lot of interesting legal issues regarding federal civil rights complaints that I think are important to discuss.

The case I’m reviewing is State of Rhode Island vs. Michael Patino. The reason I have chosen this case is because it involves illegal search and seizure of cell phone text messages which violates the 4th amendment. The reason for the violation was because the officer gained evidence without a warrant or permission of the owner of the device.

The petitioner was convicted in the district court for the southern district of california under eight-count indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, in violation of a federal statute (Hall, 2016.) During trial the government was permitted over the petitioner’s objection, to introduce evidence of the petitioner’s end of telephone conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls (Hall, 2016.) During the conviction, the Court of Appeals rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights, because there was no physical entry (Hall, 2016.)

One of those was the case Benjamin Gitlow V. People of the State of New York, which happened on June 8, 1925. Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist, was a arrested for publishing and distributing copies of his article “left-wing manifesto”, which called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and the forceful overthrow of government, and was charged with criminal anarchy under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902. During his trial Gitlow argued that he was protected under the First amendment was he had the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press. On appeal the Supreme Court conveyed that the first amendment applied to New York through the Due Process Clause, ensures the rights and equality of all citizens, under the 14th amendment. Meaning New York had to follow Federal Government laws and not their own laws when dealing with Freedom Of Speech and Freedom of the Press which were ratified into the constitution in the year 1971. Although the Court decided Benjamin was still arrested because his speech was not protected under the First Amendment under the “clear and present danger test.” This case was very important because this was the year the first amendment was nationalized and showed how states had to follow federal government

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.).

July 3rd, 2013, the police stop a young African-American male on his way home from school. When he asked the officers why he had been stopped, they replied, “ If you aren’t hiding anything, you don’t have anything to worry about”. The police officers began interrogating the young man asking questions like where he was coming from, where was he headed and what he did during the day. The young man informed the officers he was coming from school and was headed home. The officer’s then asked to search the young man’s book bag. “ I’m sorry, officers why do you need to search my book bag? Again, the officers replied, “ If you are not hiding anything, you have nothing to worry about.” At the time this young man did not know his rights and should have

In the Court Case Mapp V. Ohio (1961) Ohio police wanted to search Dollree Mapp’s Apartment to find proof of illegal betting among other things. They used a pretend warrant to search through his home after he told them no. After doing this they found evidence of child pornography and other things found in his apartment. When they went to trial the Judge ruled in favor of Mapp because his 4th and 14th amendment amendment was broken. He was allowed to walk free.

The Center for Constitutional Rights filed the federal class action lawsuit Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. against the City of New York to challenge the New York Police Department’s practices of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop and frisks of New York City residents.

The Plaintiff, Sullivan, was one of three Commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama who sued the Defendant, the New York Times, for printing and releasing an full page ad about the civil rights movement taking place in the south that defamed Sullivan. The ad was called "Heed Their Rising Voices" and it caused a "wave" of terror that had been directed against those who took place in the civil rights movement in the South. Some of the facts were false. The ad didn't single handily point out Sullivan, he claimed that it referred to him indirectly because he had oversight responsibility of the police. The Defendant stated that they didn't have any reason or proof to say the facts were false. No one put out the extra effort to see if the facts were false