Justice Alito Case

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

The Court recognized in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, that the scope of a warrantless search must be commensurate with the rationale that excepts the search from the warrant requirement. Chimel authorizes a search of incident to arrest for (1) weapons or (2) incriminating evidence. Further, Chimel limited the scope of a search incident to arrest to the person placed under arrest and the area “into which an arrestee might reach.” 395 U.S., at 763.

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.

Hudson v. Michigan does not eliminate the “knock and announce” obligation police officers have when searching a suspect or the premises of the suspect’s property. However, it will eliminate the issue of criminal courts that suppress evidence when officer but will prevent criminal courts from suppressing evidence obtained in searches where officers do not follow the protocol of the rule’s

Telephone is a telecommunications device used to communicate between two or more people in any distance. Primarily telephones were used only for communication purposes but today telephones are as powerful and useful as computers are. With the evolution of phones, many things have changed which includes phone records. In past, phone records involved only phone numbers but today there is so many data and information on phones. These records include phone numbers, bank information, personal pictures and videos, location and text messages. These records are often used by law enforcers to investigate crimes by gathering information from phone records. Since 1970 many things has changed. This paper examines the technological differences between phone records in the 1970 and smartphones, privacy and how courts affect the technology.

The major constitutional issue this case deals with is the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially

Search and seizures are highly debated topics in the United States. Stop and frisk, automobile searches and border searches all fall within the guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. Discussed in this paper will be what reasonable searches, seizures and arrests are and how they are applied. Also to be discussed is whether probable cause is needed during warrantless searches and how the right to privacy is weighed. Finally, this paper will discuss how America’s borders are being protected by the Fourth Amendment, and what exceptions

Balancing the parameters of the Fourth Amendment1 can be a delicate matter. Search and seizure is an integral part of law enforcement; however, it must be handled to the letter of the law protecting the rights of all parties involved. According to the Emergency Doctrine2, probable cause3 in addition to exigent circumstances4 under Article 14.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may afford the police the authority to conduct a search without a warrant. The proper protocol for a Constitutional search and seizure will be dissected and interpreted regarding proper police management and intervention through the following example:

The purpose of this paper is to outline relevant case law as well other additional resources I will be referencing for my final course project on the Fourth Amendment. The sources within this paper are pertaining specifically to the section within the Fourth Amendment regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. I have included a brief for the following cases, Arizona v Gant, and Mapp v Ohio, as well as a synopsis for each additional resource I have chosen regarding my topic. These sources will aid me in both learning and understanding the Fourth Amendment of our United States Constitution.

In the case Mapp v. Ohio, the police received a tip that a possible bomber was hiding in the home of Ms. Mapp. The police went to Ms. Mapp's home claimed to have a warrant entered the home and searched the entire home. During the search Mapp struggled with an officer to see the warrant and was placed in handcuffs. The search resulted in the police finding obscene materials; Mapp was then arrested for possession of these. Mapp's lawyer argued that no warrant was produced prior to the search of her home, which meant that the material found could not be used in court against Mapp. This case was taken to the Supreme Court where it received a 6 -3 decision in Mapp's favor. The court stated, "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is by the same authority, inadmissible in a state court." With

They felt as though they should be able to use any means necessary to prevent crime and disable criminal activity. However, there is a huge difference in the priorities of Law Enforcement and the Judicial system.

This paper will present the Exclusionary Rule and the original intentions for its enactment. It will discuss the importance of the rule and how it is a protection against an unlawful search and seizure and a violation of the rights provided by the Fourth Amendment. Also, this document will display the history of the Exclusionary Rule, with its first appearance in the case, Boyd v. United States in 1886. Weeks v. United States will show a better-established, stronger version of the exclusionary rule. Another expansion of the rule will be described by the Mapp v. Ohio case. In this paper, I will also state and describe the four primary exceptions to the exclusionary rule: Inevitable Discovery Doctrine,

Though the Fourth Amendment can lay the foundation of the laws of search and seizures and warrants, there are still many controversies as to what is classified as a violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. However, the wording of the Fourth Amendment can be confusing as different individuals interpret privacy in various ways. Terms that may be interpreted differently in the Fourth Amendment can include: 1) right of privacy, 2) search, 3) seizure, 4) arrest, and 5) reasonableness. This paper will examine how each term relates to the practice of stop-and-frisk, automobile searches, and border and regulatory searches.

The United States Constitution has a search and seizure requirement provided for in the Fourth Amendment. The constitution seeks to protect the privacy of its citizens from arbitrary and unfounded searches in their private property. The amendment broadens the scope of searches and seizure, where it prevents the government from exploiting the privacy of citizens when they are at their homes, places of work, and even public places. It prevents law enforcement groups from randomly stopping citizens on the streets and searching them without probable cause to do the same (Re, 2014). The exclusionary rule ensures that law enforcers abide by the provision of the fourth amendment. It prevents evidence that is attained from unreasonable searches and seizures from being used against suspects in a court of law. A case that illustrates the same

Subsequently, this ratio is of great significance as it demonstrates how legal instruments can restrict the potential for arbitrary arrest by holding government agencies accountable for their conduct. This case considers the statement by Scott LG in Dumbell v Roberts &