Officer Jones Fourth Amendment

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 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

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

A traffic stop for a suspected violation of law is a ‘‘seizure’’ of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 536. Seizures based on mistakes of fact may be reasonable. Id. at 532. All parties agree that to justify this type of seizure, officers need only ‘‘reasonable suspicion’’—that is, ‘‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped’’ of breaking the law. To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them “fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.” Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. Id. at 536. Courts do not examine the subjective understanding of the particular officer involved. The Fourth Amendment tolerates mistakes and preserves probable cause if "those mistakes—whether of fact or of law—[are] objectively reasonable." Id.

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

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 protects citizen’s right against unreasonable search and seizures. Law enforcement are required to show probable cause to be issued a warrant which grants law enforcement to conduct a legal search. There are a few exceptions when a warrant is not required, but probable cause is still needed.

Under the fourth amendment, Police do not need a warrant for a search if probable cause is there. (Schmalleger, 2012).The search and seizure are made under the reasonable cause. For instance, For example, A police officer makes a routine traffic stop of a vehicle to site the driver for speeding and smells alcohol when he talks with the driver, then the officer has probable cause to search the vehicle for more illegal things without a warrant (Schmalleger, 2012)

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.

“Unreasonable search 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.” – Amendment IV

In easier terms, the fourth Amendment was written to protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and if a search or seizure was reasonable government was now required to have a warrant issued from the courts in order to do so. In order for the courts to issue a warrant to search, which is usually a person’s home, or car, or even their work place, there must be probable cause. Probable cause must be “supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption” according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. For example, if the court’s issue a warrant to search an individual’s they must lay details out on why and what can be searched.

In recent times there has been a growing number of concerns regarding the way police officers perform arrests. Along with these arrests are searches conducted by officers which can sometimes be unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects its citizens by giving “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (U.S. Const., amend. IV). This amendment aims to prevent officers from conducting random searches of a citizens’ property and aims to give them a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Fourth Amendment tells us that people have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure. Unless there is a warrant which has been given for probable cause, authorities cannot enter your residence. This warrant must tell what is to be searched, whether it is a person, a home, or belongings, and it must be specific. This also means that probable cause applies in all arrest situations. “Probable cause is the likelihood that there is a direct link between a suspect and a crime.” (Fagin, 2012) The police must

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).

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