Moreno V. Hanford Sentinel, Inc.

The case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding regards a 13 year old student, Savana Redding, who was accused by others of alleged drug dealing (prescription strength ibuprofen & over the counter naproxen) in school. After Redding was confronted by principal, Kerry Wilson, she denied any wrong doing and agreed to let Wilson and school administrator, Helen Romero, search her bag and outer clothing where nothing was found. Nevertheless, Redding was instructed by Wilson to the nurse’s office, and was striped searched by Romero and nurse, Peggy Schwallier. Wilson’s decision to strip search Redding was without reasonable cause (Scotusblog, 2017). The school officials clearly violated Redding’s fourth amendment right by conducting a strip

In the case of New Jersey v T.L.O a high school student was suspected of trying to hide cigarettes in her bag. An official searched the bag and found cigarettes,marijuana, and a list of names of students who owed T.L.O. money, she argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches was violated. She was then charged with possession of marijuana and sentenced to one year of probation. Before trial, T.L.O. wanted to suppress the evidence discovered in the search, but the Court denied her motion. The supreme court said school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students already have a reduced expectation of privacy when in

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

In the case of Vernonia v. Acton the fourth amendment is involved. The fourth amendment states that all people should be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Vernonia School District found that student athletes were participating in drug use after an official investigation, because of this they began requiring random drug testing for the students to participate in school sports. A student at the school, James Acton, and his parents did not consent to the random testing so he was not allowed to participate in football. Because he was not allowed, it was questioned if random drug testing of the student athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment.

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 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 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).

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.

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.

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

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

According to the scenario I’m a police officer on a task force investigating a major drug trafficking operation within my jurisdiction. As an investigator on this assignment I have been issued a wiretap order by a judge in my jurisdiction in order to listen to the suspect’s phone. While listening to some phone conversations I overhear the suspect and others talking on the phone but it has not been yet determined if they are involved in the drug ring or not but I do overhear some evidence related to some other criminal activity. Now the wiretap was done in order to get certain information on the drug dealing but there was other information obtain in the wiretapping about some other criminal acts which can fall under the forbidden fruit doctrine because I never entered the home and everything was heard. Therefore, this could be considered new found evidence that may led to an arrest in some more serious crimes from the person or persons. Yet, the Fourth Amendment does not allow or give people an absolute right to any privacy and all searches are not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment just the ones that are unreasonable. Therefore, I feel that no constitutional issue is involved because some would say that the person Fourth Amendment right was violated but unfortunately it was not violated. There was no search of any material things such as the person, the house, his paper or any effect because all information was received by a legal wiretap and the amendment does not forbid

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 Fourth Amendment to the U.S. 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 (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

The intent of the Fourth Amendment is to guarantee security against unreasonable governmental searches. Because school officials are actually