The case that I chose is a lawsuit filed against the use of a cell tracking system. Jerry Boyle, a National Lawyers Guild volunteer, attends protests regularly to offer legal help to people being arrested and watch police behavior. The day of the incident, Boyle was present at a Black Lives Matter protest in Chicago. He says information on his cellphone was caught by a Chicago Police Department stingray device. These devices have access to one’s text messages, phone calls, and location. Surrounding phones can be tracked, as well. Boyle’s right to practice freedom of speech peacefully and right to be not be searched unreasonably were violated.
The major constitutional issue this case deals with is the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially
During the serch of his cell phone they found a multude of evidence including pictures, videos and texts of another car that Riley owned that was involved in a murder that took place earlier. Also later testing found out that the handguns were the ones used the murder where also Riley’s car was used. Riley was a suspect of the murder but eyewitnesses couldn’t pin Riley to be one of the shooters. During the trial for the murder Riley’s lawyer tried to get rid of the evidence but the judge allowed the evidence to remain in the trial and also the retrial stating that it was againts the fourth amendment but the court ruled that it wasn;t because of the SITA doctorine, which allowed a officer to search a arrested person and the area if the officer could be in danger. The court said since his phone was taken during a search incident to arrest that the officer didn’t need a warrant. Later Riley was convicted of shooting at a occupied vehicle attempted murder and assault with a semi-automatic firearm and faced 15 years to life in prison. His appeal was heard by The California court of appeal, fourth district, divison one and they all agreed with the
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.).
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
On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search
Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.
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.
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
The lawsuit that I have chosen is about a company not hiring someone because of their race. Tyeastia
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 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.
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.
One such incident that explains what I mean is the case of Hazelwood v. Kulhmeier. This case was spurred when The Spectrum, Hazelwood East High School’s student-run newspaper, presented
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.)
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.