I. The Initial Stop Was Constitutional And Did Not Violate

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

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).

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).)

The Supreme Court made it clear with its ruling that, police do have the authority to stop or detain an individual for a questioning for a short-term period without probable cause if he/she make have or about to commit a crime. This ruling is important because it gives police officer the authority to help protect him/herself as well as the community. It also puts steps in place to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure that is protected our Fourth Amendment right. In the case of Terry v. Ohio a police detective observed two men walking up and down a street several times and gazing into a store window. The officer observing conduct from the individuals that would lead him or her to suspect that a crime has already happened or about to happen is one of the necessities need to consider this as a valid stop. The officer identified himself as an officer of the law and began to inquire and request identification. The officer in this case followed the required guidelines for a valid stop. In return the Supreme Court ruled that this was a valid stop and frisk. According to United States Supreme Court TERRY v. OHIO, (1968) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. While I unreservedly agree with the Court 's ultimate holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because what is said by this Court today

A detention is reasonable when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, under the totality of the circumstance, provide an objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224.) As such, an investigatory stop based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is an unlawful seizure, even though the officer may be acting in good faith. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.) Nonetheless, reasonable suspicion cannot be justified after the fact by evidence of criminal activity uncovered during the course of the detention. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788.) Moreover, mere proximity cannot be enough to create reasonable suspicion because proximity

The 4th amendment, search and seizure causes a lot of problems. Search and Seizure is the rights that police have when they enter in a home. The standard for conducting a warrantless search, probable cause, is the same standard necessary for a warrant to issue. An illegal search or illegal seizure is a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, and any evidence seized must be excluded from trial. Normally police need a search warrant to enter into a home unless they get the consent to enter in the home without one they normally don't go go into a home without anything. A terry pat is when a police officer can detain or conduct a reasonable search for weapons where the officer has the reason to believe the person is armed. Auto stops is

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

Under the fourth amendment, Police do not need a warrant for a search if probable cause is there. (Schmalleger, 2012).The search and seizure are made under the reasonable cause. For instance, For example, A police officer makes a routine traffic stop of a vehicle to site the driver for speeding and smells alcohol when he talks with the driver, then the officer has probable cause to search the vehicle for more illegal things without a warrant (Schmalleger, 2012)

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?

Respondent was halted by Border Patrol Agent Stoddard while driving on an unpaved street in a remote territory of southeastern Arizona. A puqrsuit of his vehicle uncovered more than 100 pounds of pot, and he was accused of ownership with purpose to appropriate. The Federal District Court denied respondent's movement to smother, refering to various certainties that gave Stoddard sensible suspicion to stop the vehicle. The Ninth Circuit turned around. In its perspective, truth particular weighing of circumstances or other multifaceted tests brought instability and capriciousness into the Fourth Amendment examination, making it important to plainly delimit the elements that an officer may consider in making stops, for example, this one. It then held that few elements depended upon by the District Court conveyed almost no weight in the sensible suspicion math and that the remaining variables were insufficient to render the stop allowable.

Reasoning: The Court further held that the officers' questioning of the defendants about their reasoning for being at the event during their detention did violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not have reasonable suspicion to question the four defendants. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a

In Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, an officer was patrolling a high crime area known for shoplifters and pick pockets. The officer witnessed Terry and a second suspect walk by a store and glance inside the window twenty-four times. The suspects uncooperative identification proceeded to a brief pat down. Terry requires specific and articulable facts in light of the officer’s training and experience built on the totality of the circumstances. The Supreme Court approved the lawful stop and frisk under the Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspicion. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, an officer performed a traffic stop for an expired license plate, asked the driver to exit the vehicle

Stop and frisk is common term in used in criminal law. There have been many debates as to the legality of stop and frisks and whether they should be legal or not. The Fourth Amendment to the constitution states the words”…upon probable cause…”(642). That gives necessary action to perform such searches and seizures. In the case Terry v. Ohio, John W. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. Terry was therefore sentenced one to thee years in the penitentiary, which were the statutorily prescribed terms. The case brought up some questions as to whether the circumstances violated Terry and Chilton’s Fourth Amendment.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search 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 seized.”

The Fourth Amendment constitution reads as follow; 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. However, the Fourth Amendment allows searches that are considered reasonable, and prohibits those that are unreasonable. In the case of Riley v. California, the issue is whether evidence collected during an unwarranted search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The case includes a San Diego police detective who executed a warrantless search of David Riley digital cell phone. The cell phone contained valuable information which was used in part to convict David Riley. While on patrol, San Diego, police officers stopped a vehicle with expired registration tags driven by the defendant in this case. David Riley was arrested for the possession of a firearm and sentenced to 15 years in state prison.