On November 18, 2011, Charges Were Brought Against Antoine

The discovery of derivative evidence on Wong Sun v United States case was all started “when police illegally entered a defendant’s residence with no probable cause and without warrant of any kind” (Ingram p.87). During the police search of Wong Sun residence, they didn’t find any incriminating physical evidence that can incriminate the defendant. However, during that illegal search of his residence, Wong Sun gave an oral statement to the police that “implicated a second defendant and produce narcotic drugs from the home of second defendant” (Ingram p.86). When police tracked the second defendant at his home, he as well gave an incriminating statement that implicated Wong Sun in the possession and use of illegal

The Government argued the defendants’ Fourth Amendment not violated under the constitutional because the parked vehicle was at a public lot. In some States, the Government has the authority to allow police officers to search a vehicle without the necessity of warrant. “...as long as a state is deciding law based upon its interpretation of its own constitution, the state can be more restrictive than the Supreme Court. However, if the state is interpreting the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, then they must follow the body of law established by the United States Supreme Court”(Policelink). The Government believes the attachment of the monitoring device for search was a responsible forfeiting act. As well as wiretapping the defendants cellular to help them enforce a predominantly well prepared investigation.

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

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 question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

Also, they challenged it under Section 7 under The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Which states the rights for life, liberty and personal security. The Crown argued that it wasn’t trafficking a narcotic substance and that it was actually manslaughter. Since, the appellant negligently gave the victim the narcotics, which ultimately killed her.

The Court faced the question of whether the search of Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In 2001, a man named Danny Kyllo was suspected for growing marijuana in his house by the police. They used a thermal-imaging device to detect heat inside his house that might be caused by the lights needed to grow the illegal substance’ without natural sunlight. The police convicted Kyllo for his crimes, but Kyllo argued that the evidence cannot be used since it violates the Fourth Amendment. Did the government go too far? Or were they able to do what they did? This means that the police did not have probable cause to use the thermal imager, it wasn’t in plain sight, and it was not a situation where stopping to get a warrant was too inconvenient. The government definitely went too far because it was an invasion of privacy using technology to

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.

The United States v. Jones case is distinguished by the use of GPS tracking (as that was not an entity when the Fourth Amendment was created). Antoine Jones was arrested for drug possession after police attached a GPS tracker to his car for more than the allowed time the warrant held out for. With this case, the U.S. Supreme Court universally established that Americans have constitutional protections against GPS surveillance by law enforcement. In this day and age, GPS tracking is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. The founding fathers who put together the Constitution never imagined technology like this, so they had no reason to include examples like this case in the Fourth Amendment. As the 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

Generally, the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Government, but the it does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those considered unreasonable under the law. The law enforcement agency is saddled with the responsibility of executing and enforcing promulgated laws. Hence, their operations should not be impeded by anything whatsoever. There would be no justice without knowing the whole truth, and there would be no truth without searching for it. Riley and Diaz had expected privacy with their phones, likewise Patino and Oliver whose phone was left laying carelessly on the kitchen counter. It would have been more accessible by the police for investigations if it was

Elliott Watson was arrested for the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute said illegal drug. Elliott Watson was stopped by Officer Timothy Johnson because of faulty mechanical problems of Elliot Watson’s vehicle, which was sputtering and stalling out, and the vehicle also fit the description of a vehicle, a sports coupe, that had earlier, was used to kidnap a three year old young girl, Wanda Jones,

1.) He raises several concerns in regards to the evidence obtained in wiretap of his mobile. Firstly he suggest that the District Court should suppress the evidence obtained in wiretap of his mobile phone. Secondly he disputes that the District Court erred in applying the analytical framework set forth in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) to govern the suppression warranted and lastly certain omissions in the wiretap application did not require suppression.

The officer unreasonably searched and seized Riley’s cell phone without a warrant to obtain the incriminating information. The Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, again 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 officer should have only searched Riley’s device with a warrant because no critical circumstance provided the officer to do so (“Fourth Amendment”). Inspecting the device’s physical condition