Investigating A Major Drug Trafficking Operation Within My Jurisdiction

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

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 three elements that comprise a Fourth Amendment search are government, intrusion and reasonable expectation of privacy. Without all three elements the action is not a search, the Fourth Amendment is not applicable, and a search warrant is not needed. The officer must then determine if any of the ten search warrant exceptions apply. Five of the exception require probable cause and the other five do not.

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 jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

To understand this situation I decided to look up cases that reflect on their fourth amendment being violated. The case that stood out to me the most was Mapp vs. Ohio. In 1957, police officers received an anonymous tip that Mapp was hiding a wanted man because he needed to be questioned for a bombing. Then Police officers went to Mapp’s house and wanted to search her house. She then denied them entry, because she needed to see a warrant to let them in. After some hours went by, the police officers forcibly entered her home and recalled that they received a warrant. Then they proceeded with the search and found some books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. Then during her court trial she appealed her sentence, because they did not receive a valid search warrant and the police officers violated her rights. Even though they found her having possessions that were illegal, they could not hold it against her. The issues with search and seizure are usually towards the issue of violating our rights. One of the rights that we are getting violated is the right if privacy. It is the interest in being free from observation that matters to us, because they always try to know what people are saying and or doing without probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides 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 guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had long required that the claimant must prove that he/she was the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment.

“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 the 1987 case of Maryland v. Garrison, Garrison was convicted of violating Maryland’s Controlled Substances Act and Maryland filed and received a search warrant. However, the warrant only stated the premises known as 2036 Park Avenue third floor apartment but there were two apartments on the third floor. Before the officers executing the warrant became aware that they were in a separate apartment occupied by defendant, they had discovered what they needed for convection. Garrison sued claiming that the seizure was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. However, the court ruled that the warrant was valid when it was issued and the way it was executed was reasonable. The validity of the warrant was assessed based on the information the officer disclosed and the fact the warrant was reasonably executed as stated in the warrant itself and was within the realms of the Fourth Amendment. Taking this into account would mean that since the warrant was reasonably served to Chester O’Riley and then also reasonably executed, and the officers only obtained what was pertained to their investigation

One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights 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.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Evidence that is acquired in violation under the Fourth Amendment is prohibited in a court of law and unconstitutional.

In the 1928, case of Olmstead v. United States the issue of whether of wiretapping constituted a “search” for purpose of the Fourth Amendment was interpreted. Olmstead was convicted of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act based on evidence obtained by tapping his telephone line from a junction box located on the public street (Kanovitz, 2010, p.267). According to the text,