Fernandez V. California: Fourth Amendment Upheld? Essay

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.

Terry v. Ohio, a landmark case from 1968, where John W. Terry was stopped and later searched by Officer Martin McFadden because he suspected Terry of “casing” out a store to rob. McFadden decided to search Terry’s clothing for weapons before he questioned him about his suspicious behavior. The Fourth Amendment applies to this case because it protects people from “unreasonable searches and seizures” without a warrant or probable cause. The reason I chose this particular case to analyze is because it is a clear example of an officer using his experience to recognize suspicious characters and gain probable cause in order to justify searching Terry and his cohorts’ clothing without violating their Fourth Amendment rights. I will examine the facts about the case, answer whether the officer’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment, Chief Justice Warren’s rulings, the Fourth Amendment and how it applies, the suspects expectations of privacy, the Courts admission of evidence into Court, and my overall opinion on the case and the Court’s decision.

The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. The supreme court of Virginia then reversed the call again.

The courts would further recognize exceptions to warrant requirements which also granted legal authority to search and seize without a warrant. The following paper discusses the importance of the fourth amendment in regard to legal search and seizures by obtaining legal warrants and the impact the amendment has had on court cases.

Search and seizures are highly debated topics in the United States. Stop and frisk, automobile searches and border searches all fall within the guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. Discussed in this paper will be what reasonable searches, seizures and arrests are and how they are applied. Also to be discussed is whether probable cause is needed during warrantless searches and how the right to privacy is weighed. Finally, this paper will discuss how America’s borders are being protected by the Fourth Amendment, and what exceptions

To begin with, in the Fernandez v. California, the Supreme Court judges resolved the question of whether the law should allow warrantless searches. The case disputed the permission rule that stated that if two tenants have authority over a particular room, one on them can give a police consent in the absence of the

Today, I am presented with a case that puts in question the violation of individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. This case also puts in question the rights of the authority placed in our streets, neighborhoods and towns to perform actions directed towards certain citizens in an effort to serve and protect the overall population. There must be a careful analysis in order to interpret the records of the incident that occurred to conclude who holds the most justified position in this case under the applicable laws. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York must also take into careful consideration the circumstances discussed and the ruling given by the District Court assigned to this case, which I

to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment” (Epstein & Walker 2016). This case justifies my argument that the Warren court left a positive impact on the American people by interpreting and extending the meaning of searches and seizures, and gave a distinct answer of how far a search can go before it violates one’s rights.

What is the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment expresses that individuals can hope to be insured in their people, houses, papers from unreasonable search and seizures. Unfortunately, this can turn into a gray area and I believe that different court can view this in different ways and the outcome in search and seizure cases will almost make you scratch your head. When you have search and seizure questions you should try and use for components to see if this is justified; was there a reasonable justification for the search, what is the thing that we may be searching for, and will there be any consequences for anyone during the search or seizure. Throughout the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O many questions arose in what was constituted as reasonable

The Supreme Court first outlined the search-incident-to-arrest exception in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) and United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), holding that police may search a suspect's person and the immediate vicinity during a lawful arrest. This exception serves two governmental interests: (1) the need to ensure officer safety and disarm the suspect and (2) the need to prevent destruction of evidence. But, as the Court stressed in a recent case, when "there is no possibility" that the suspect could gain access to a weapon or destroy evidence "both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply." Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 339 (2009). The basic rule under the Fourth Amendment is that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable." Id. at 338.

The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the idea that a man’s home is his castle and should be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government.

The Fourth Amendment is set to protect against unreasonable searches. (Hall, 2015). I believe as current police officer and especially in today's society it is imperative that we understand the laws that we are trusted to enforce. The reason there are laws set in place is because previously someone has had their civil rights violated. That is why now we have so many case laws to reference. Obviously with times come changes. As of now and what I have learned in the academy there are certain exceptions to enter someones residence without a warrant. They are exigent circumstance, in another words if there could be serious bodily injury or death then we have our due diligence as police officers to enter the residence. If we are pursuit of an individual

415 U.S. at 175-77. Further, in Garcia, it was held that a third-party landlord has the common authority necessary to consent to a warrantless search of an area, even if it is locked off, if there is clear evidence that the third party has expressly been given the rights to use and enter the area without any limits in scope or duration. 887 S.W.2d at 851-852. Moreover, in Shelton, the court held that an ex-wife had the authority to consent to the search of her ex-husband’s home, which she had moved out of, when the ex-wife still possessed unchecked access to her ex-spouse’s home. 337 F.3d at 538.

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

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. Defining the boundaries of what can be deemed an unreasonable search, and what defines a probable cause has caused a myriad of debate since its creation. This issue has exacerbated over time with the rapid development of technologies.