Pros And Cons Of The Fourth Amendment

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.

The officers stated that they believed a fugitive was hiding in her home. Miss Mapp told the officers that there was no one else in her home. They

The Constitution of The United States of America was created “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” Our rights, as citizens, are protected by the first ten amendments also known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were established due to the strong objections of the British rule on the original colonies. Particularly speaking, the fourth amendment has protected our rights from unlawful search and seizures. With the implementation of “Probable Cause” and the vagueness of the Bill of Rights, the rules have been stretched and some say violated.We the people, need to develop the fine line between Probable cause and an unlawful search.

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 4th amendment has been tested in the Supreme Court.”Police officers in Kansas City, Missouri went to the house of Mr. Fremont Weeks and used his hidden key to enter

Legal Reasoning: The ultimatum of the Fourth Amendment is whether the search was reasonable. The Supreme Court upheld that a warrant is generally required to search a home. Warrantless searches are not reasonable when two co-tenants are present and one of the tenants objects. However, the court held that a same search is reasonable when the opposing tenant is not present. Since the opposing tenant; Fernandez, was arrested and not present, the court affirmed that the search was reasonable

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

1. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution says, “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.”

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."

In establishing a § 1983 claim the claimant must first determine which constitutional right was violated. In this case, Dave Douglas, Taylor Reveley, and George Walkers claims fall under the Fourth Amendment because they have not been arrested or detained for pretrial. Each plaintiff will argue that the police officers seized them unreasonably and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. First, the claimant must establish that the government actor was acting under “the color of law.” In this case, the police officers were acting in their official capacity as on-duty cops. HotCop, as a possible contractor with law enforcement may also operate under the color of law and therefore be subject to suit as well. This will be addressed further later in the memo. Each potential plaintiff and the possible defenses to their claims is addressed below.

The Fourth Amendment is an important part of our constitution and protecting U.S. citizens’ rights, but has recently been weakened and worm holed by the government. The amendment states that there has to be a search warrant issued in order to be able to gain access to a U.S. citizens personal records. Since the 60’s however, this rule has been bypassed to allow the NSA to have the ability to search homes and personal records without a search warrant. Modern technology has negatively effected the amendment, and has been one of the most recent cases of the amendment being worm holed. When the “private information” is put on social media site, the information then belongs to the site, not the user. This allows the government to get on the site,

First, it confirms that a proper understanding of constitutional law is extremely important and that without proper documentation, it's moot. In this instance, it appears that the officers could have easily based their search on the Motor Vehicle Exception (the person had narcotics in his possession), but instead, they based their search on an inventory...and documented it in that manner. Unlike the case above, the court did not take that into consideration...they merely ruled on the contested point (whether or not towing the vehicle was lawful). In this instance, the court said that the vehicle was legally parked and the officers had no justification to tow. As such, the search (and case) was lost. This one seems like a no-brainer as far as what exception the search should have been based on...we always (I hate using the word always, since it'll make a liar out of me) base our vehicle searches on the Motor Vehicle Exception when we can. It's the most easily defended. All we need to document is our probably cause. If we have that, there isn't much to contest. Then the defendant has to fall back to whether or not we had a legal right to be where we were (valid stop...). The last point, keep in mind that contempt of cop is not a valid reason to tow a vehicle (that's like fining them before the conviction...they have to pay to get their vehicle out). If the vehicle is not evidence, and is legally parked, leave it if that's what is

When there is a bad person under suspicion I want the police to throw the rules out the window. When it is an innocent I think the police can get to excited, and abuse this power, and understandably so. Seeing the past it is easy to figure out, but in the situation how is one to know? "It appears that the greater number of searches, as well as the vast number of arrests, take place without warrants" (CRS annotated constitution, n.d. para. 1). How can the law use this idea the wrong way. Is there not supposed to be a proceedure? Then again I want the bad people off the street and secreting getting to them might be the only way sometimes.

According to Swanson et, al. (2014), “If an investigator/officer is lawfully in a place and sees contraband or evidence in plain view, the investigator may seize the evidence, and it will be admissible” (Swanson et, al. 2014, p.32). Her reaction to the circumstances were justified because she saw what could possibly be contraband and a firearm on a speeding suspect on an area of criminal activity. She was proceeding with the law on her side and the situation described that the area in Downtown Center City was victim of violent incidents, criminal activity was present because the suspect was speeding. Automatically Quintana becomes a suspect in the eyes of officer Bird leading to his arrest. As mentioned in the book there are three main components for arrest: “Ingredients of arrest: Intention, authority and custody (Swanson et, al. 2014, p.21) Officer Bird made the right decision because she had all the three ingredients to make the arrest of the individual in

That’s a clear example of the Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The Exclusionary role states that evidence obtained in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights cannot be used against that individual in a criminal trial. Amendment IV is 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 person or things to be seized. The police didn’t have a search warrant stating they were on scene looking for stolen items. They only reported to the scene because of the shooting.