Explain what would be required of police to do the following: • Search a home suspected of containing marijuana: If the police suspect that a home contains marijuana, they must first obtain a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment, unless there are exigent circumstances such as destruction of evidence, hot pursuit, or some other exception that applies. Although the Fourth Amendment protects a man’s home, neither the home nor all the surrounding objects are beyond the capacity of being searched under proper circumstances. If the police officers possess a search warrant to search a particular home, the warrant may extend to include vehicles parked within the structure and those parked nearby if the objects of the search warrant …show more content…
• Search an auto after a traffic stop: The search of a vehicle because of its mobility has different issues under the Fourth Amendment than for homes and buildings. Because of a vehicle’s mobility, it could drive right through a court’s jurisdiction before a warrant could be obtained. Since all vehicles have windows, persons who are inside the vehicle and who have placed personal items within the interior of the vehicle may expect an arguably lower probability of privacy. Motor vehicles, as well as their operators, have been subject to extensive regulation by the states; court interpretation of the right to be secure against unreasonable searches in one’s papers and effects when they are contained within a vehicle shows that a person has a diminished expectation of privacy in a vehicle. Although there is a reduced level of the Fourth Amendment protection, where vehicles are concerned, the general rule requires that, prior to a search, the police must possess probable cause and although the level of privacy is reduced, the level of probable cause remains identical to that for any other search where evidence of criminality is being sought after. Probable cause may develop due to a police officer’s observations, reports from other officers, information from informants, or a combination of all these factors. In the case of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) police officers had
Citizens are protected by two constitutional amendments, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises (including a vehicle), and any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable.
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.
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 three elements that comprise a Fourth Amendment search are government, intrusion and reasonable expectation of privacy. Without all three elements the action is not a search, the Fourth Amendment is not applicable, and a search warrant is not needed. The officer must then determine if any of the ten search warrant exceptions apply. Five of the exception require probable cause and the other five do not.
My goal’s I attend to achieve in pursuing a certificate in Basic Law Enforcement are primarily to make an impact in the community. Furthermore, I enjoy the various jobs that Law Enforcement has to offer. Last reason, would be to be part of an exclusive organization that I can be proud of. My past experiences in my work history have been mostly related to customer service, problem solving, and interpersonal skills. I also have interacted with plentiful of people, on many different social levels and many diverse cultures.
Third, the area to be searched and any item to be seized must be described with particularity (Hall, 2016.) There must be very specific information to obtain a search warrant. A warrant that authorizes a police officer to search a particular home for “unauthorized contraband” violates the Fourth Amendment (Hall, 2016.) A warrant authorizing a search of the same home is valid, provided the warrant is valid in all other respects (Hall, 2016.) The items seized must be very specific and usable items to convict the criminal of his or her actions within the act.
The United States Constitution affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always
The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.
Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot just force their way into someone’s home without probable cause. Even with probable cause, the police need to have the consent of the owner or a warrant that says they can search the premises, and that anything they find can be “used against you in a court of law” (Miller, 2016). The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments to the criminal justice system. The Fourth protects citizens from the police obtaining things that could lead citizens to be convicted for something that the police did not have permission to obtain in the first place. The exclusionary rule was put in place by Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States.
This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.
The Fourth Amendment provides, "[t]he 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 of the United States Constitution applies to a person and their home by providing protection against unreasonable seizures and searches. While it provides protection, not every search and seizure can be deemed unreasonable unless it is classified as per the law, by determining whether there was: a) the level of intrusion of the individuals Fourth Amendment, and b) whether or not it pertains to the government’s interest, such as safety of the public.
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment require that police officers, when arresting someone who was an occupant in a vehicle, show either a threat to officer safety or a need to protect evidence related to the crime they are being arrested for make it legal for an officer to conduct a search of that vehicle without a search warrant?
There are a few automobile exceptions under the Fourth Amendment, but how is it explained? Well, the Fourth Amendment automobile exception is just an exemption to the overall requirement that needs to be in place before a warrant for searches and seizures of a person under the Fourth Amendment. According to Automobile Exception (n.d., para. 1) an automobile may be searched without a warrant when the evidence may possibly be removed from the scene due to the mobility of a vehicle and it is not practical to secure a warrant without jeopardizing the
When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to