Olmstead V. United States Case Study

Pamela Powers on December 24, 1968 was kidnapped from a YMCA in Des Moines, Iowa and then murdered. A 14-year-old boy reported having had helped Robert Anthony Williams (defendant) car door and said he saw two skinny and white legs. His car and Pamela’s clothing were found the next day. William was found two days later in a town 70 miles away. During transport one of the officers inculcated William to tell them where to find the body in order for the child’s parents to have a Christian burial. William gave in and led them to the body consequently admitting to knowledge of the crime. In that same day (December 26), the Iowa

Supreme court rules federal investigators can wiretap into suspects phones legally, and use those conversations as evidence.

There have been court cases taken to trial where the evidence has been uncovered to have been retrieved under a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and consequently declared invalid. Such evidence was either obtained without a warrant or under unreasonable search and seizure. In cases where evidence is obtained under a violation of expectation of privacy, suspects can fight back in court and be held unaccountable for their crimes. They walk out of court with neither fines nor a sentence. With this said, evidence is off limits when retrieved under a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Otherwise, the evidence is valid and can be used to determine a criminal's luck from the moment the enter a court of justice.

Elonis v, United States, a case involving, Anthony Elonis who between May 2010 through October 2010 posted on Facebook on what arguably was seen as threats, saying that he was exercising his 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech. Elonis first started, what was viewed as threatening post on Facebook, after his long term wife left him, taking their kids with her. Emulating himself as a rapper, Elonis changed his profile name to “Tone Dougie”, which he later used as an excuse to post threats claiming them as lyrics. He made several vulgar post about how he could and wanted to kill his ex-wife. In turn she filed a restraining order against him fearing for her life and safety.

dealings with members of the Seattle police to secure the release of any of the

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

While, reading the case, Elonis v. United States, I was astonished to see that someone would post something so explicit, offensive, and inhumane. Basically, the case of Elonis v. United States is about a man named Anthony Elonis who is an upcoming rapper and used his stage name, Tone Dougie. His Facebook page consisted of him posting disturbing rap lyrics. Even though Elonis was going through a divorce with his former wife, which did not stop him from writing and posting crude lyrics. Eventually, it got to the point where his wife felt that she was being targeted by his lyrics. According to an article on, New York Times, Elonis wrote that he wanted to see a Halloween costume that included his wife’s “head” on a stick. Obviously, she felt threatened and reported the assaults to the police. Anthony Elonis was convicted for posting threats that targeted his wife, his coworkers, police officers, a kindergarten class, and even an FBI agent. Although Elonis argued that his posting are not considered to be a “true threat” and that he is protected under the First Amendment. I believe he wanted to cause fear towards his wife, Tara and therefore, is his lyrics are a true threat. Basically, a true threat is defined as something a person would consider to be “purposely” harmful and cause pain. Elonis mentioned that his post were not offended nor were the threatening anybody. He stated that he did not have the intent of trying to harm anyone, he was just trying

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.

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

Throughout history, there are many cases that violated that right of the citizen especially the Fourth Amendment. What is the Fourth Amendment and why do many people challenge this amendment? The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not violate, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. The biggest problem with this amendment that many people tried to challenge is what is reasonable or unreasonable to searches and seizures. One case that challenges the Fourth Amendment is New Jersey v. T.L.O. that was argued on “March 28, 1984” ("New Jersey v. T.L.O." Oyez) and reargued on “October 2, 1984” ("New Jersey

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

Does an evidence seized in warrantless search can be used at a trial violates the Fourth Amendment?

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 Court, nevertheless, rejected Olmstead’s claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. A “search,” the Court declared, requires a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected location and a “seizure,” the taking of tangible things. Olmstead’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the interception of his telephone conversations because government agents never set foot on his property or took anything tangible; his telephone conversations were “acquired” through their sense of hearing only” ( Kanovitz, 2010, p.267).

In Olmstead v. United States, the dissenting opinion of Justice Louis Brandeis held that regardless of the method of transmission, such as telephone conversations, evidence gathered and used against an accused without applying the Fourth and Fifth amendments was illegal and therefore inadmissable to the court. Chief Justice Taft however, used the argument in the majority opinion that since there was no seizure of physical evidence and there was no state agency compelling the men to conduct their business on an open telephone line, the Fourth amendment simply didn 't apply and therefore, there was no violation of the Fifth either.