Independent Drivers 4th Amendment Rights: A Case Study

Concise Rule of Law: The warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on the individual’s vehicle to track the person’s movements on public streets constitutes an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

It was also the fact that whether or not the evidence was retrieved when the law enforcement illegally attached a tracking device to the vehicle could be used to convict Jones on drug charges who was sentence to life in prison. According to the Fourth Amendment citizens have the right to be secured in their houses, papers and effects against an reasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated an no warrants shall be issue upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized.

The Government argued the defendants’ Fourth Amendment not violated under the constitutional because the parked vehicle was at a public lot. In some States, the Government has the authority to allow police officers to search a vehicle without the necessity of warrant. “...as long as a state is deciding law based upon its interpretation of its own constitution, the state can be more restrictive than the Supreme Court. However, if the state is interpreting the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, then they must follow the body of law established by the United States Supreme Court”(Policelink). The Government believes the attachment of the monitoring device for search was a responsible forfeiting act. As well as wiretapping the defendants cellular to help them enforce a predominantly well prepared investigation.

house without permission or a warrant. The health lady completely violated the 4th Amendment when she went onto the man’s lawn without a warrant and against his wishes.

In 1791, a vital document for the United States of America was written. The Bill of Rights. James Madison fulfilled the Anti-Federalists wishes by adding a list of rights to the constitution in order for the document to be ratified. The Bill of Rights addresses rights and freedoms which were violated under British rule. Although all 10 amendments are important, I have analyzed each one and ranked their importance. In 1791, some amendments would seem more important than others due to the recent events from the Revolution. Each amendment is relevant in its own way but some are exercised more than others by individuals in the United States. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights is the most important amendment.

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend IV. Absent a warrant, a search may be reasonable if officers obtain consent of a third party having actual common or apparent authority over the premises or items to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). Actual common authority over property hinges on the “mutual use . . . by parties generally having joint access or control.” Id. at 171 n.7. Should actual authority be absent, the search is still reasonable if officers reasonably believe, based on facts available, that the consenting party had authority over the premises. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 (1990).

The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, in large part, aimed to protect the privacy of individuals. One in particular, the Fourth Amendment safeguards people from the government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures to include of their person, dwelling, and property. “Probable cause” must be articulated and agreed to by a magistrate for a search warrant to be issued and executed.

The fourth amendment protects citizen’s right against unreasonable search and seizures. Law enforcement are required to show probable cause to be issued a warrant which grants law enforcement to conduct a legal search. There are a few exceptions when a warrant is not required, but probable cause is still needed.

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was introduced to Congress in 1789 by James Madison, however it was not adopted until 1791, and is an extremely important amendment contained in the Bill of Rights. “In the past forty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly advanced the notion that the Fourth Amendment encompasses the common-law restrictions on searches and seizures,” (Mannheimer, M. Z., 2015, p.1, para.1). The Fourth Amendment requires governmental searches to be conducted only when a search warrant is issued, sanctioned by probable cause and supported by oath of affirmation, however, there are exceptions to this rule that are stated in the “Exclusionary Rule,” which was established in 1914. The “Exclusionary Rule” states that there are certain instances, where a search can be conducted without a warrant, such as probationary searches, plain view searches, exigent circumstance searches, border searches, and consent

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

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.

In the case 543 U.S. 405 (2005) ILLINOIS V. CABALLES No. 03-923. A routine traffic stop by a State Trooper , stopped Roy Caballes, while this stop occurred the Trooper Daniel Gillette walked is narcotic dog around the respondents vehicle. The dog detected an odor of marijuana which was located in the trunk and the respondent was arrested. Caballes's Fourth Amendment Rights were not violated, which most would probably argue that State Trooper Gillette violated Caballes. In fact the Fourth Amendment allows a dog to “sniff” around the outside of a vehicle without a warrant and considers this not invading any personal space or a citizens privacy. The only time this would be a violation would be if an officer of the law held the stop longer than it needed to be, or stalled the stop improperly just to make an excuse for the dog to “sniff”, for example in the case of 575 (2015) RODRIGUEZ V. UNITED STATES No. 13-9972.

All Americans are entitled to their rights. The Fourth Amendment states that we the people have to deny search and seizures from law enforcement without a warrant. The fourth amendment generally prohibits police from entering a home without a warrant unless the circumstances fit an established exception to the warrant requirement. According to the book The Constitution: Our Written Legacy by Joseph A. Melusky, the Fourth Amendment gives the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although we are entitled to these rights, police sometimes use and abuse their authority. In many cases, the Fourth Amendment has helped prove the innocence of one’s actions.

S. 158 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act is not a mens rea offence as there is no language that implies that the accused acted with guilty intentions. Also, the legislation does not provide a statutory defence for due diligence. The charging provision uses language of negligence by indicating that someone is guilty of the offence if he or she fails to take reasonable steps to avoid following another motor vehicle. Additionally, the charging legislation does provide a defence for due diligence. “The driver of a motor vehicle or street vehicle shall not follow another vehicle or street vehicle more closely than is reasonable and cautious having due regard…” If someone is accused of committing an offence, pursuant to S. 158 (1) of the Highway

There are many accidents everyday that are costing people their lives. My young brothers and most definitely my grandparents would probably kill me for saying so, but there should be some changes made to the laws concerning the age requirements of drivers. If the State of Ohio changed the age requirement of operating a vehicle to between 18-70 years of age, our roads would be much safer to drive on.