Lstd302 Case Brief

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.

The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

The lower courts that were deciding on the case initially were the district court of Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court. The District court granted the motion that the Fourth Amendment was not violated. The Ninth circuit found that the strip search was unjustified under the fourth amendment. The circuit court later tested the qualified immunity, and discovered that the rights of the child were established at time of the search.

Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of certain papers, books, documents etc. Rules are not violated in it. There must be probable reason because in order to arrest a particular person without a search warrant. It possesses an oath or affirmation from the government. It has two fundamental rights as Right to privacy and Right to freedom. Search occurs when it has a correct reason that was obligated by the government people. Private individuals are violated from this amendment. A seizure happens the owner must has a right documents with him on his own property, if not the documents is seized and the person gets arrested. Sometimes the property belongs to other possessor but in mistake reasonable person gets involved in the task. The banning of unreasonable searches can violate many things to be happen.

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

Issue: Under the Fourth Amendment, was the warrantless search consented by Rojas allowed, even though Fernandez had previously objected to it, and if so, does Fernandez have standing in the matter, even though not physically present during the consent of his co-tenant?

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

and seizure (Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall

The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. The supreme court of Virginia then reversed the call again.

Can the fourth amendment keep school officials from strip-searching students due to a suspicion of drugs, which violates the schools policy?

Kerr, O. S. (2013). The Curious History of Fourth Amendment Searches. The Supreme Court Review, 2012(1), 67-97.

The 4th Amendment 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.”

Although searches may be executed for the right cause, they may not be constitutional. The first ten amendments made to the Constitution were the Bill of Rights. These amendments were added so that all the states could ratify the Constitution and so citizens would have protections from the government. Of these ten amendments, was the Fourth Amendment. This amendment called for the protection of a person’s rights regarding security of themselves and their property. In court cases, courts are able to use their power of judicial review to interpret the Constitution and laws. They do this to assure that the Constitution and federal laws are being followed correctly. The interpretations made may not always be true to the text or maybe even just a part of it. In regards to the Fourth Amendment made to the Constitution, the Supreme Court both does and does not interpret the amendment accurately. They do so accurately in the Mapp v. Ohio case and inaccurately in the Wolf v. Colorado case.

When first arriving at Valdosta State Prison I discovered that is was smaller than I had originally imagined. The Prison was also set up differently than I had initially expected. This includes the fact that a lot of the inner workings of its structure was outside guided by chain fences, which were controlling the flow of foot traffic. Next, I was surprised at how small the security entrance was, however, something else that caught me off guard was having to take my shoes off and then putting the soles on my feet on display for the security guard. Since my group was the first group to go through security I had more time to analyze the inside with that time. What I noticed from this experience was the use of certain motion detectors that were originally displayed to us in a prison video during class at the beginning of the semester. During this time I also noticed Valdosta State Prison’s lawn seemed nicely maintained by inmates.

The court acknowledges that the Fourth Amendment grants the citizens of the United States protection against illegal searches and seizures of their home by requiring a warrant unless there is consent (U.S. Const. am. 4). We understand that the defendants did not have a warrant and that the plaintiffs did not consent to a search.