Legal Case Summary

An individual with authority should not abuse their power and violate any individual’s constitutional rights no matter the situation. In this week’s scenario, a police officer conducted a routine traffic stop for a broken headlight. The officer’s “hunch” is not probable cause to conduct a warrantless vehicle search. The Fourth Constitutional Right protects an individual against unlawful search and seizures (Roberson, 51). If an individual constitutional rights were violated due to a warrantless search any evidence that is collected could be inadmissible in court.

The officers violated the Fourth Amendment, which states that they were required to have a search warrant. Now to obtain a warrant, the people searching need to have probable cause. The Fourth Amendment was part of the first ten ratified in 1792. It has gone through various changes, such as Terry v. Ohio. In this case, a police officer has reasonable suspicion to search Terry. During the search, the officer found a firearm in Terry’s waistband. When the case went to court, Terry’s attorneys attempted to use the Exclusionary Rule on the weapon. They claimed that there was no search warrant on Terry. While this was true, the Supreme Court ruled that a pat down did not invade Terry’s privacy. Therefore, the evidence was not excluded in the

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.

On his website, a Utah DUI Attorney, David Rosenbloom speaks about violations of the Fourth Amendment.  He states that police officers “pay little attention to the fourth amendment… [because] it is not a self-enforcing right, such as the freedom of speech” (Rosenbloom).  In short, if a citizen believes his or her rights were violated and they were illegally searched/things were seized from them, they must “ask a court to examine the case and apply the fourth

Law enforcement officers are known to “hunt for property or communications believed to be evidence of crime, and the act of taking possession of this property,” also known as conducting a search and seizure. It is a necessary exercise in the ongoing pursuit of criminals. Search and seizures are used to produce evidence for the prosecution of alleged criminals. Protecting citizens from arbitrary searches, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is our right to limit and deny any unreasonable search and seizure. More often than not, police officers tend to take advantage of their authority by the use of coercion. Although it is unlawful, most citizens do not know what police officers can and cannot do in respect of their human rights.

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the police cannot make arrest, search citizens and their property without a warrant, take away objects or participate in surveillance unless given authorization from a judge or if the issue needs a search or seizure without the court's approval (The

The first amendment I will explain is the procedural rights for the Fourth Amendment (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The fourth amendment protects a person and their personal effects from unreasonable search and seizure. Unless there is probable cause for the warrant. A search is when law enforcement is inspecting or exploring person or their property to discover evidence of a crime or are accused of a crime. Seizures are when someone commits a crime and their property is taken into custody when there is a violation of a crime. A person is considered seized when they cannot freely leave such as when there are several officers, a display of a weapon, some form of physical touching, or tone of the officer’s voice. There are two types of search and seizures, the first is made with a warrant it is a written order

If found true the officer is violating the constitution. The fourth amendment is secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. The fourteenth amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property. This means that an officer is not allowed to come into a person’s home or onto their property and do a search without a warrant, unless they are given permission.

The Fourth Amendment is set to protect against unreasonable searches. (Hall, 2015). I believe as current police officer and especially in today's society it is imperative that we understand the laws that we are trusted to enforce. The reason there are laws set in place is because previously someone has had their civil rights violated. That is why now we have so many case laws to reference. Obviously with times come changes. As of now and what I have learned in the academy there are certain exceptions to enter someones residence without a warrant. They are exigent circumstance, in another words if there could be serious bodily injury or death then we have our due diligence as police officers to enter the residence. If we are pursuit of an individual

In order to get a search warrant, probable cause must be established. In most instances, reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed is established first and that leads to probable cause that a crime was committed. Reasonable suspicion is what gives law enforcement the legal right to stop a person because they believe that “the individual is engaging in criminal activity” (Hirby, 2017). Once probable cause has been established by law enforcement, a search warrant can be obtained. Law enforcement do not have to obtain a search warrant in instances such as exigent circumstances, plain view, consent, hot pursuit, and search incident to arrest. Even though these are the exceptions to not obtaining a search warrant prior to search and seizure of items and belongings, they are also the most commonly challenged when it comes to violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment.

Many courts have caseloads so high that some fails to appoint counsel in a timely manner after being taken into custody. Mostly indigent individual spends the most time in jail before ever receiving counsel to appearing in court. Addition, prosecutors using per-trial to give time coerce plea agreements.

Law enforcement personnel are delegated through the authority to serve and protect, make arrests, conduct investigations, perform searches and seizure of persons and their belongings, and occasionally, their line of duty depending on the situation, use lethal weapons. But this authority entrusted to law enforcement personnel must be exercised within the limitations of law, or it might jeopardize the admissibility of any evidence collected for prosecution. That brings us the Fourth Amendment formed in 1971. Which 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. No Warrants shall be issued, but upon Probable Cause, supported by Oath

In Middletown, Ohio, police officers upheld the fourth amendment by searching the homes of eight people with a warrant. Police officers in Ohio searched three homes on March 19th, 2014 with a search warrant declaring that they could do so. Upon entering these homes, the police officers found evidence of a meth lab along with materials that were used to make illegal drugs. The people that were involved in this creation of meth and the meth labs were faced with charges, and two of the eight men were arrested accordingly. According to the fourth amendment, the police officers would need a warrant before searching the homes of these eight people. These police officers in Middletown, Ohio did, in fact, uphold the fourth amendment by only searching the homes with a search warrant that allows them to.

The recurring theme throughout these cases is the lack of communication and the harmful effects that it inflicts. Good communication is essential for both managerial