Florence V. Board Of Freeholders Of The County Of Burlington

In the case of Brinegar v. United States, the petitioner claimed that the arresting officer violated his 4th amendment rights and illegally search his car. In the search and siezure the officer found that the petitioner was transporting intoxicating liquor into Oaklahoma, which is a direct violation of law. The courts found that the arresting office had arrested the petitioner on the same violation several months earlier and this was enough reasonable cause to conduct the search ans seizure.

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 Fourth Amendment states, 'The 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

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

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

The lower courts that were deciding on the case initially were the district court of Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court. The District court granted the motion that the Fourth Amendment was not violated. The Ninth circuit found that the strip search was unjustified under the fourth amendment. The circuit court later tested the qualified immunity, and discovered that the rights of the child were established at time of the search.

The question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

Legal Reasoning: The ultimatum of the Fourth Amendment is whether the search was reasonable. The Supreme Court upheld that a warrant is generally required to search a home. Warrantless searches are not reasonable when two co-tenants are present and one of the tenants objects. However, the court held that a same search is reasonable when the opposing tenant is not present. Since the opposing tenant; Fernandez, was arrested and not present, the court affirmed that the search was reasonable

Thirty-five years later after Weeks’ case, the Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) held that the 4th Amendment protection applies to searches by state officials and federal agents. However, the exclusionary rule generated in Weeks’ case did not apply to the states. The appellant, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted of treachery to commit abortions in Colorado and police officers had attained evidence used against him without a warrant or consent. State judges were not required to disregard evidence obtained in desecration of the 4th Amendment in states’ criminal prosecutions. In this case, the Supreme Court applied the 4th Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Wolf’s verdict was upheld (Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 1949). The Supreme Court left the states to enforce the 4th Amendment protection. It resulted in the abused power and the court had to intervene (Holten &Lamar, 1991).

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “The 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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

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?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The 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 (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at