Court Case Decisions for Amendment I, IV, and VIII Essay

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

The U.S. Supreme Court adopted alternative 3. The court believed that the fourth amendment gave police enough power to “freeze” suspicious

This case is important to anyone working in law enforcement because of the objective reasonableness standard that it established via the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case also reversed a four-factor test regarding use of force that was used to test if the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or was applied with malice to cause harm. The Supreme Court in 490 U.S. 396 (1986) determined that the four factor test did not cover all possible situations and only the decision making skills of a human being can adequately determine the appropriate use of force.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

In the supreme court Muehler v. Mena case, Mena sued the officers in federal district court for violating her 4th amendments rights. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The officers heard that there was that she was affiliated with gang violence and deadly weapons so they searched the house that Mena and others were in. The officers did things like handcuff Mena and the others. They also questioned her about her immigration status. She believed this violated her 4th amendment rights that should protect her from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Mena tried suing the officers in federal district court for violating her Fourth Amendment rights after this. She felt

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court saying that the search did violate Savanna Fourth Amendment right because no drugs were suspected to be concealed in her bra and underwear so they had no reason . The judge felt the school officials were not liable and entitled to qualified immunity because school officials were just trying to prevent drugs distributed throughout the school.

Procedure:     Garner’s father brought the action the police officer took in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, looking for violations that were made of Garner’s constitutional rights. The complaint was alleged that the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After a three day trial, the District Court entered judgement for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon’s actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment require that police officers, when arresting someone who was an occupant in a vehicle, show either a threat to officer safety or a need to protect evidence related to the crime they are being arrested for make it legal for an officer to conduct a search of that vehicle without a search warrant?

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

Procedural History: Savana’s mother filed suit against Safford Unified School District #1, Wilson, Romero, Schwallier for conducting a strip search in violation of Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court for the District of Arizona granted the motion on ground that there was no fourth violation, and a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. A closely divided Circuit sitting en banc, however, reversed. The ninth circuit held that the strip search was unjustified under the Fourth Amendment test for searches of children by school officials set out in New Jersey v. T.L.O.

The event took place in Cleveland, Ohio, when Dollree Mapp’s house was entered by police officers, who weren’t carrying any official search warrants. The police believed she was sheltering a suspected bomber; no evidence or bodies were found, but police discovered a chest containing explicit pictures stored within her basement - these pictures violated state law. With this discovery, the police arrested Mapp due to the vulgar images they obtained. Once arrested, Dollree claimed that her fourth amendment of rights had been violated by the police, and ultimately brought her case to the supreme court. The supreme court came to the decision that illegally seized evidence shall not be authorized for use in criminal prosecutions in federal courts and later broadened this ruling to state courts.

Mapp was completely correct in saying that the police officers broke the 4th amendment. The case clearly shows how police used illegal evidence against Hills. The Supreme Court handled the case did all the correct things during the case.

Norths Dakota was heard before the Supreme Courts because constitutional rights were violated. The officers in two of these instances unlawfully used their authority to prosecute and threaten to violate the defendant’s legal rights. The 4th Amendments was challenged in this case and should be preserved at all times. Justices Sonia Sotomayor eloquently stated, "This court has never said that mere convenience in gathering evidence justifies an exception to the warrant requirement," Sotomayor wrote. "I fear that if the court continues down this road, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement will become nothing more than a suggestion." (CNN Politics,

2. The issue of violation of her Fourth Amendment rights since the “search,” for better lack of words, and seizure could possibly be a problem relating back to the consent and search warrant issue, and

Arthur, Bud, and Claudia have appealed their convictions because they feel that their Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also protects the right of the people to be secure