Evolution Of Vehicle Searches : The Outcome Of Arizona V.

The Government argued the defendants’ Fourth Amendment not violated under the constitutional because the parked vehicle was at a public lot. In some States, the Government has the authority to allow police officers to search a vehicle without the necessity of warrant. “...as long as a state is deciding law based upon its interpretation of its own constitution, the state can be more restrictive than the Supreme Court. However, if the state is interpreting the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, then they must follow the body of law established by the United States Supreme Court”(Policelink). The Government believes the attachment of the monitoring device for search was a responsible forfeiting act. As well as wiretapping the defendants cellular to help them enforce a predominantly well prepared investigation.

One reason why the government did not go too far is that the DLK case had the same reason as in the Carroll case. In 1925, the Supreme Court said that the warrantless search was valid on Carroll’s car because otherwise, Carroll might drove away

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

While searching an automobile there is a different standard. For example, in the case Chimel v. California, the automobile was a ?movable scene of crime.? Evidence could be gone by the time a warrant could be issued. In California v. Acevedo, 1991, the court set down a rule that covers all automobile searches. It was ruled that, ?when ever police lawfully stops a car, they do not need a warrant to search anything in that vehicle that they do not have a reason to believe holds evidence of a crime.? (Grolier Encyclopedia)

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

When an officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009).

When it comes to Search and Seizure, allot of people think that law enforcement should not be allowed to search or seize property. I have heard many arguments against this subject, people stating that law enforcement officers go too far or have no right to search someone’s property such as their vehicle. Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion it requires that a combination of facts makes it more likely than not that items sought are where police believe them to be. In addition to establishing probable cause for a search, a warrant must contain the reasons for obtaining it, the names of people presenting the affidavits, what is specifically being sought and the signature of the judge issuing it.

The constitutional requirements of stop and frisk practices were bought up by the Supreme Court during the court case of Terry v. Ohio. Before this case, it was illegal for Police Officers to stop someone and frisk them unless they were being arrested or have a search warrant for that person. After various cases that tested the constitutional rights of Americans such as Sibron v. New York, Peters v. New York and Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court cane to the conclusion that police officers can frisk someone without having

The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.

Another case that establishes the premise for determining the validity of the search includes United States v. Matlock. The question before the Court in Matlock was whether the third party's consent for the police to search the defendant's house was "legally sufficient" to render the evidence admissible at trial. Police officers arrested the defendant in his front yard, but did not request his permission to search the house. Instead, some of the police officers approached the house and requested permission to search from Mrs. Graff, who lived in the house with defendant. Mrs. Graff consented to the search and the officers found nearly $5,000 in cash in a closet. Both the district court and the court of appeals excluded the evidence from the trial, finding that Mrs. Graff did not have the authority to consent to the search. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to settle this evidentiary issue. Justice White, for the Court, espoused the

The United States Constitution affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.

New York vs Belton gave officers the power to search a vehicle during an arrest as long as the person arrested stayed on the scene of the arrest and the search performed in a timely manner to the arrest, even if the person arrested cannot gain access the

The district court’s holding that allowing ambiguity to defeat apparent authority would unreasonably burden police officers by forcing them to clarify the consenter’s authority over every container within the area they were permitted to search should be upheld as it is one that is supported by persuasive precedent from a sister circuit of this Court. See United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038, 1042 (7th Cir. 2000). In Melgar, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit uses Supreme Court precedent to support the position on ambiguous apparent authority stated above. See id. (citing Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)). The Seventh Circuit states the Supreme

This rule limited the authority of officers in their scope of search of an automobile. A Search Incident to Law Arrest no longer authorize a vehicle search incident to every occupant’s arrest.