Fourth Amendment Research Paper

The officer did have reasonable suspicion to make contact and after locating the weapons he had his probable cause. There are four situations that Probable Cause is used; involving arrests with a warrant, arrests without a warrant, searched of items with a warrant, and searches of items without a warrant (V., D. C., & Walker, J. T., 2015). Most of my encounters with individuals occurs on traffic stops; which require probable cause to stop them. My probable cause could be speeding, reckless driving or any traffic violation in the traffic law manual. Once probable cause is established then contact is made with the driver. If there is reason to believe that there is more than a traffic violation, such as an officer smelling marijuana inside the vehicle, then he or she can now have access into the vehicle. My probable cause to get into the vehicle is based on my training and experience that there was or is illegal narcotics inside the vehicle. If there is no probable cause to get into the vehicle and an officer feels there is more to the traffic stop than speeding, then the officer needs to build his reasonable suspicion to figure out what the driver is up to. For example, one night on patrol, it was believed that there was a possible drug transaction going on in the

The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

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)

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

If they feel like someone might be carrying a weapon or drugs with them that might be illegal or harmful then they also have the right to check the person but in a manner that is allowed by the law. There is a need to clearly establish the rules and limitations when it comes to reasonable suspicion so that there are no issues when these policies are being applied. It is right for people to believe that the law enforcement has gained enough experience to point out when something or someone seems suspicious. It is exactly this experience that then forms the basis of their reasonable doubt which is why the law has allowed them to act but there are still some limitations obviously to make sure that the rights of any individual are not threatened.

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 fourth amendment gives people the right to not get illegally search. In other words someone can’t just run up to you and search you they have to have a good reason too search you.. The fourth amendment however is not guaranteed against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

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.

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

The initial stop was legal due to the factor that the officer thought the taillight was nonoperational. Officer Taylor was allowed to frisk the driver when the officer suspected the driver may have committed a crime, and the factor of the driver speeding off gave him right to pursue. The weapon was in plain view and the marijuana is admissible in court because the driver was being arrested for fleeing. Search and seizure laws protect citizens, but in this case, the driver isn’t protected when they don’t conclude the initial traffic

In the Plain View Doctrine, it is legal that when attempting a search for another means, a public official can seize other evidence that may not be accompanied with that crime as the findings are of criminal activity. Even though, a police officer may have already secured a warrant but have specified what their findings will be in detail, there are still loopholes even within their statement, Horton v. California. Therefore, even when inadvertently seizing the evidence, it is still confined as validified evidence due to the officer’s lawful right to seize something even if there is no warrant. In general, even with the exceptions to the requirement of warrantless searches, there has to always be a general rule that even the cases above me have to inquire within their proposed holding of the case and its circumstances. Most searches and seizures, warrantless or not, are

It would be true that once an officer has conducted a pat down search and determined that there are no weapons, he is not allowed to go further in searching without either consent or a warrant. On the other hand, it is not the law anywhere that such a search must be limited to the feel of a gun. Any object which might possibly be used as a weapon can be

That’s a clear example of the Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The Exclusionary role states that evidence obtained in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights cannot be used against that individual in a criminal trial. Amendment IV is 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 person or things to be seized. The police didn’t have a search warrant stating they were on scene looking for stolen items. They only reported to the scene because of the shooting.

When searching a vehicle the police have the right to use force against the owner of the vehicle if they have reasonable grounds to think that there could dangerous weapons such as knifes or guns stored in the vehicle, or if they believe that the driver could be on drugs or is drink driving. The police must ask you if they can search your vehicle and you can say no but it makes it more suspicious to them because you could be trying to hide something. If they think that you are drink driving they can ask you to take a breathalyser test and if found that you have been drink driving they can arrest you and seize you