Graham V. Connor Case Summary

One is the imposition on citizens Fourth Amendment rights. Another is the government’s interest for public safety. The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment should be determined by the risk the country is facing. In other words, if the country is under attack, society should give the government more latitude to access information in exchange for safety. However, the power given should be limited under check and balances to avoid overpower or abuse from the government. During times of war, clauses should be

Working for a law enforcement agency one must be able to make split second decisions regarding the use of force. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) established the standard of “objective reasonableness” for law enforcement (Graham v. Connor, 1989). This case was heard by the Supreme Court after a diabetic man (Graham) was forcibly detained by law enforcement after he was suspected of a crime.

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

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

Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of certain papers, books, documents etc. Rules are not violated in it. There must be probable reason because in order to arrest a particular person without a search warrant. It possesses an oath or affirmation from the government. It has two fundamental rights as Right to privacy and Right to freedom. Search occurs when it has a correct reason that was obligated by the government people. Private individuals are violated from this amendment. A seizure happens the owner must has a right documents with him on his own property, if not the documents is seized and the person gets arrested. Sometimes the property belongs to other possessor but in mistake reasonable person gets involved in the task. The banning of unreasonable searches can violate many things to be happen.

The Tennessee vs. Garner case in 1985 reiterated the unlawful nature of deadly force when used by law enforcement officers. A few years later, the justification of excessive force transpired during the Graham vs. Connor case in 1989. In this case, the concept of "reasonableness" was explored when a police officer followed a man’s car because of personal suspicions. Berry Graham was handcuffed and questioned. In the midst of the arrest, Graham experienced discomfort due to his diabetic condition. He simultaneously acquired several cuts and bruises because of the excessive force being used on him. His pleas were ignored, and he proceeded to file a lawsuit claiming that the force that had been used on him violated his fourteenth amendment rights regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The court justified the practicality of the case and declared that the officer’s force was appropriate regarding the circumstances of the situation. This decision emphasized the powers that law enforcement officers have regarding the amount of force they must use to execute their duties.

“Nothing is more clear than that the Fourth Amendment was meant to prevent wholesale intrusions upon the personal security of our citizenry, whether these intrusions be termed ‘arrests’ or ‘investigatory detentions.’ ” Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-727.

In my paper to follow I intend to better educate and provide examples and different situations dealing with the Fourth Amendment in criminal procedures.

What is the 4th amendment and how it relates to the Stop and Frisk policy?

The Supreme Court began to erect modern Fourth Amendment law in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, recognizing police discretion but with the exclusionary rule at its center. The provision that became the Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1791 and states as follows: “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. The Fourth Amendment does not entitle absolute protection, but rather a reasonable protection. Said protection not only applies to material objects, but also individuals themselves (Schmalleger 2009).

The Fourth Amendment is the right for people to be secure in their homes, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. The amendment also states that warrants will not be issued unless they are issued under probable cause. This amendment is the biggest factor in the case of Omaha Herald v. Police, however, this case cannot as easily be defined by the Fourth Amendment can be and there are arguments and cases which can be made for both sides.

The Supreme Court has stated that the calculus of the propriety of an officer’s use of force must include the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. Officers who use force in the street are judged under the Objective Reasonableness

The most controversial aspect of the fourth amendment is the debate over what constitutes as a legitimate search. Since the amendment’s addition to the constitution on December 15, 1791, citizens have questioned police action. The case of United States vs. Jacobsen states that “A seizure of property occurs when the government meaningfully interferes with a person’s possessory interest.”

I believe that the Fourth Amendment was written to protect society from government intrusion in our daily lives. The Fourth Amendment protects us from the government spying on society. I think that the Fourth Amendment has both pros and cons the pros are that it protects citizens from being illegally search it also protects from the government being able to seizes property without probable cause , protects the privacy of citizens and last but not least it protects from unlawful arrest. Cons are that it hinders investigation by making it more difficult to gather evidence and not allowing officer to do their jobs. The one investigative search that I believe that is affective and will continue to be affective is the Knock and Announce rule I believe

Whenever a law enforcement officer places an individual under arrest or is involved in a deadly force scenario the officer has used some degree of force. The incidents where an office has to make a split second decision and use physical force to control a situation is known as “Use of Force.” The use of force varies as situations present themselves to the officer and they must decide what level of force is necessary to control the situation. Often the use of force is subject to much debate and not a year goes by without some media coverage of some law enforcement officer accused of using excessive force. In dozens of studies of police use of force there is no single,