Hudson V. Michigan

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

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

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 United States Constitution affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

What constitutes a valid search and seizure? The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, it seeks to create stability or poise between the needs of law enforcement and the privacy of people in the United States (Worrall, 2017). The justifications that arise from the law make sure that enforcement officials function within reasonable standards in their search of a suspect. This paper examines the three levels of justification that validates a Fourth Amendment search. As a result, it is necessary to explore such justifications and their applicability.

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

Before the Supreme Court case of Mapp vs. Ohio in 1960, the states were able to interpret the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which covers the search and seizure of individuals and their property. Interpretation caused the states to disagree on what was justifiable search and seizure according to the constitution. Under the Fourth Amendment, a court issued warrant along with probable cause was required for search and seizures. The states all had different opinions of the definition of what an unreasonable search or seizure was. Therefore, each state’s enforcement was different.

Search and seizure has recently been a communal debated issue for most of society. The controversy is split, one stance is for public safety and the other is for privacy. The Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure, was adopted into The Constitution of the United States to tackle “writ of assistance”, a general search warrant used during British rule. Unlike the general search warrants used during British rule, search and seizure have many guidelines and court precedents preventing law enforcement from randomly going through someone’s property. Like any rule, you will always have rule breakers; if the evidence is illegally seized, then that falls under the exclusionary rule.

The district court’s holding that allowing ambiguity to defeat apparent authority would unreasonably burden police officers by forcing them to clarify the consenter’s authority over every container within the area they were permitted to search should be upheld as it is one that is supported by persuasive precedent from a sister circuit of this Court. See United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038, 1042 (7th Cir. 2000). In Melgar, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit uses Supreme Court precedent to support the position on ambiguous apparent authority stated above. See id. (citing Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)). The Seventh Circuit states the Supreme

In the case of Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383 (1914) Mr. Fremont Weeks (Defendant) was arrested by a police officer without a search warrant at the Union Station (his employer) in Kansas City, Missouri. Succeeding, Mr. Week’s arrest auxiliary police officers had gone to the defendant’s residence, and was apprised by a neighbor where the defendant kept his key. The police officers procured the key, then entered the residence. The officers searched the defendant’s room and confiscated various documents and items. Afterwards, the defendant’s possessions were turned over to the United States marshal. Later that day the police officers returned with the marshal, whom also did not have a search warrant. The marshal thought he might find additional evidence,

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

Mapp v. Ohio, was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in this case this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as construed by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to actions of the states. On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in

The trial judge concluded that MacDonald’s possession of the gun was unauthorized and that, “the officer’s pushing the door open further did not breach M’s s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search” (pg 38). The officer pushing the door

Although people in the United States are entitled to privacy and freedom from government intrusion, there is a limit to that privacy. State or federal police officers are allowed, where justified, to search your premises, car, or other property in order to look for and seize illegal items, stolen goods or evidence of a crime. There are certain rules that the police must follow when engaging in searches and seizures (FindLaw, 2014). Not every search, seizure, or arrest must be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances (FindLaw, 2014). First, this paper explains what the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights means. Second, this paper gives examples of court cases concerning search and seizure of vehicles and the Fourth Amendment. Third, this paper examines the Richmond VA 2nd Precinct Police Departments policies, procedures, and practice of conducting vehicle searches. This paper examines the Richmond, VA 2nd precincts policies for vehicle trunk searches, searches that are conducted after the driver has being arrested, searches on impounded vehicles, searches on abandoned vehicles, and searches of vehicle passenger’s compartments and containers. Of interest will be if their policies and procedures or practice complies with constitutional provisions of search and seizure.