How Did Albert Leon Use The Fourth Amendment

The Supreme Court opinion regarding the actions the officer took in using excessive force was reasonable under the circumstances that Victor Harris had put other drivers and law enforcement officers in danger and concluded that Deputy Scott did not violate the constitutional rights by the use of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Although all the evidence of this case leads to Weeks’ being guilty, he was found not guilty in a unanimous decision. The court stated that because the police refused to give back the possessions they took, they violated Weeks’ fourth amendment rights. If the police were to hold on to

There are two cases that are being compared; New Jersey v. T.L.O. and Safford v. Redding. The rulings in both of these cases were just. In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O. the defendant (T.L.O.) was found guilty for smoking cigarettes and for possessing drug paraphernalia in her purse. In court, her lawyer argued that the way that her purse was searched, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since she was a delinquent and her rights were not, in fact, violated, she was sentenced to probation for one year. In the Safford v. Redding case the defendant was strip-searched for ibuprofen by her school officials, which was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She was proven innocent from her charges and in turn, she filed suit against her school district and the school officials involved in the case. Redding claimed that her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Both cases have a few things in common as well as many differences.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court saying that the search did violate Savanna Fourth Amendment right because no drugs were suspected to be concealed in her bra and underwear so they had no reason . The judge felt the school officials were not liable and entitled to qualified immunity because school officials were just trying to prevent drugs distributed throughout the school.

In the Supreme Court case “Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 1995,” the question before the court was whether or not “...random drug testing of high school athletes violates the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.”(“Vernonia School District.” [Oyez]). The case concerned the Fourth Amendment, which protects a person’s right to privacy and protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, a seventh-grade student, James Acton, claimed that the situation regarding a mandatory drug test in his school was an unreasonable search. Without doing the test, he was not allowed to join an athletic team. Although the court case changed its name order, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court trial was the Vernonia

The Constitutional Issue: This violated the Fourth Amendment, because the Fourth Amendment protects the people from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.

The court should find that the evidence found against the defendant, Mr. Arnold J. Stewart, should not have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “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 moment Stewart left his suitcase in the care of Mr. Holt, he gave him possession over it. In the case of United States v. Arango, 912 F.2d 441 (10th Cir. 1990), the court determined that the one who has the right to possession of personal property has the right to exclude others from searching it. In this situation because of Larry Holt’s growing concerns with the suitcase beginning left with him for longer than intended and the concerns of whether the suitcase contained a bomb, he did not exclude

Mapp’s conviction was overturned, and 5 Supreme Court justices found that the states were in fact bound to exclude any evidence that was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. The court justices felt that if evidence obtained through a violation of the 4th Amendment, was admissible, and then there would be no assurance against any type of unreasonable search and seizure, making the 4th Amendment essentially meaningless. After this decision, any evidence that was obtained through illegal searches would be inadmissible in the courts of every

This evidence of drug dealing was turned over to the police and the police asked TLO’s mother to bring her to the police station for further questioning, which resulted in her confession of selling marijuana at the school. In the Supreme Court, TLO lost to New Jersey 6-3. The question brought to the court in this case was, did Choplick’s search violated TLO’s Fourth Amendment, and did the exclusionary rule apply to the search.

The 4th amendment to the US Constitution serve as a security to the privacy of citizen but as American citizen would rarely have the government to use the surveillance to ensure the nation security from terrorist threat. People use the internet, phones, and cameras to record information. The government do wire taps and now even in the City of Atlanta we have camera on light poles and on the streets in downtown but it is for a good reason to help protect the people that work, live and walk the streets this also help the police where that they are short of help. I think the government has stop more attacks on the country using the surveillance since 9/11 incident. I believed if this will help protect us then the government

The fourth amendment prohibits any search and seizures on a person without a warrant to give the right to privacy. No probable cause is needed for a search and frisk. In Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Circuit the defendant was arrested because he refused to give up his identity. The court found that it was necessary for the person to give up their identity because it can inform the police if that person has a mental illness, is wanted for something else, or can clear their name. In Illinois v. Wardlow the defendant ran away when he thought the police were trying to catch him for narcotics in a high crime area. The court believed that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the unprovoked flight. This case is similar because both the defendant ran

FACTS: In Lexington, Kentucky officers were suspicious of a subject who was suspected to be a drug dealer. The officer initiated an observance of the subject’s movements and followed the subject to an apartment where the odor of marijuana was admitting. The officers made their presence known and immediately heard sounds that the believed were indications that the subject was destroying possible evidence. The officers knocked and explained they were making entry into the room. The officers forcefully enter the apartment and observed the primary subject, additional subjects, and drugs including paraphernalia in the open. The subject was brought to The Circuit Court where the court denied the motion of the defense team to remove the evidence from the case based on the entry of the officers being unjust due to not having a proper search warrant. The defense team entered a guilty plea to obtain the authorization to appeal The Circuit Courts ruling. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed this request which prompted The Supreme Court of Kentucky to reverse the decision. This action was based on the courts assumption that additional exigent circumstances did exist however, it did not proved the officers the proper authorization to conduct a

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was created so authorities should need a warrant to search a home or property, for U.S. citizens have freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions, and for all searches and seizures must be reasonable. Although, an officer should be able to search on the spot if they feel they have probable cause. “The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the

From what was brought to the Supreme Courts attention the police did everything properly, they knocked on the door loudly and told the tenants they were the police. If they do not do those two things the tenants may not hear them or they may not open the door because they do not know who it is. This is where the situation became exigent because then the tenants inside began running around and obviously destroying evidence. The police then shouted they were going to enter the apartment and busted the door down to get it. The respondent pointed to no evidence supporting his argument that the officers made any sort of demand to enter the apartment, much less a demand that amounts to a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment. The record was made clear that the officers’ announcement that they were going to enter the apartment was made after the exigency arose, therefore everything that happened was just.