K9 Handlers Case Summary

In this case, I am presenting an individual citizens Fourth Amendment protection captivated from Jones and others individuals. The government started investigating Jones with a suspicions conspiracy of drug trafficking. A tracking device installed on the defendants’ vehicle after a terminated authorize a warrant permanent to the Government to search and install a GPA on Jones vehicle. Antoine Jones and others with the same conspiracy of the investigation were sentenced life imprisoned by the District Court Juries of Washington District of Columbia. The jury found Jones guilty of drug trafficking and possessions. The 12 amendments proposed in 1789, that constitutions the Bill of Rights under no circumstance to protections individualities

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

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.

1. Identify and describe the three possible alternatives for applying the Fourth Amendment to “stop and frisk” situations. Also, identify which alternative the U.S. Supreme Court adopted and explain why.

This case is important to anyone working in law enforcement because of the objective reasonableness standard that it established via the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case also reversed a four-factor test regarding use of force that was used to test if the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or was applied with malice to cause harm. The Supreme Court in 490 U.S. 396 (1986) determined that the four factor test did not cover all possible situations and only the decision making skills of a human being can adequately determine the appropriate use of force.

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

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

Hendrickson. In this case Mr. Kingsley was a pretrial detainee at the Monroe County Jail in 2010 when he was asked by an officer to remove a piece of paper concealing the overhead light in his cell and he refused to do so. After being asked by a sergeant Hendrickson a few more time and each time refusing, a lieutenant had his men remove it and more Mr. Kingsley to another cell. On the way to the new cell he didn’t act in the way the guards wanted him to so the yanked him to his feet and hit them on the frame of the bed so bad that he was unable to walk. Once in the cell Mr. Kingsley refused the officers attempt to have the cuffs taking off so Hendrickson“his knee in Kingsley's back and Kingsley yelled at him. Kingsley also claimed that Hendrickson smashed his head into the concrete bunk. After further verbal exchange, another officer applied a taser to Kingsley's back” (“ Kingsley v. Hendrickson”). Mr Kingsley sued Hendrickson and the other jail members involved saying what they did violated his due process rights given to him by the 14th Amendment. He lost the first time but he appealed saying that the jury was given bad instruction on how to judge if the force was excessive or not and what the intent was the U. S. Court of Appeals agreed with him. Mr. Kingsley narrowly won his case with a 5-4 vote in his favor. The Supreme Court said: “The Court held that,

• 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).

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

First, it substantially limits citizens’ Fourth Amendment right to personal security. “The constitutional lodestar for understanding the Fourth Amendment is not an ad hoc reasonableness standard; rather, the central meaning of the Fourth Amendment is distrust of police power and discretion.” However, many courts give strong deference to the judgement of police officers and judicial scrutiny makes it impermissible to second-guess police officer’s split second judgments. “Were courts to consider the historical distrust of police power when reviewing reasonable force claims, one would expect less deference to police judgment and more concern for an individual’s interest in personal security.” The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect citizens from governmental abuses and yet the factors put forth by Graham are far more protective of law enforcement

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.

On the night of October 3rd, 1974 at approximately 10:45 p.m. Edward Garner was shot by Officer Hymon in an attempt to stop him from escaping a crime scene. Garner died on the operating table due to the gunshot wound on the back of his head. His crime was burglary and he was found with a mere ten dollars and a purse. The case was argued on October 30th, 1984 and a decision was made on March 27th, 1985. The father of Edward Garner believed his son’s constitutional rights were violated by the defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, and the Mayor of the city of Memphis. With a 6-3 decision, the Justices’ decided that Officer Hymon was acting justly under the fourth amendment that states that deadly force is constitutional as long as it is “reasonable”. I believe Officer Hymon was acting in good faith and simply fulfilling his duty to protect the public and stop criminals from escaping punishment.

The Supreme Court has stated that the calculus of the propriety of an officer’s use of force must include the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. Officers who use force in the street are judged under the Objective Reasonableness

We must start in the research of the NYPD Frisk Program: Noble Cause Corruption situation with the Fourth Amendment‘s which protects a person against unreasonable searches and seizures of the U.S. Constitutional 4th Amendment. Further review of the 4th Amendment law provides guidelines for the search and seizure between police and citizens in a public place.