Summary Of Caballes Fourth Amendment Rights

Many years ago, the United States Constitution was created as a guideline for the newly formed government to run this country as well as secure protection rights of all citizens. Since then, there have been many incidents that question the violation of citizens’ rights under the Constitution, such as the violation of the fourth amendment which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures especially in the school system and on college campuses. The fourth amendment 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” (O’Brien, 2014). As this pertains to those citizens who are students, whether it be in the primary, secondary, or post-secondary setting, the question that unveils itself is whether or not students are entitled to their constitutional rights, in this case, the fourth amendment’s rights, while in the school environment.

Citizens do not always fully understand legislation before becoming angry at someone. Who better to point a finger at than their government (Zuckerman para 7)? Despite the actual legal terms on surveillance, innocent citizens feel that they have had their rights violated and wonder why the government needs their information if they have nothing to hide. The supreme court declared in the third party doctrine that “anyone turning over information to a third party, such as a bank or Internet service provider, has no right to object if that information is later shared with the government” (Timberg para 11). Whether they understand the law or not, most people feel that their information should not be unnecessarily subjected to the government without their voiced approval (Zuckerman para 6). “Quite simply, the administration could have done a much better job of explaining both the potential and the limits of data mining. It should have made it clear

There are circumstances where people find warrants unconstitutional, but the fourth amendment is ethical through its probable cause, guaranteed privacy, and search warrants. Privacy to citizens makes them feel comfortable and protected. Without the fourth amendment privacy would be unavailable, the citizens of america wouldn’t feel very

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).)

When the colonists established the bill of rights in the 18th century, the fourth amendment seemed unambiguous. The government needed to respect the right for people to be “secure in their persons, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures and not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” The difference between today and eighteenth century is that many more situations have come up that weren’t around during the eighteenth century. New technologies, new threats and new circumstances have risen that may diminish the restriction on the fourth amendment. In order to protect society from new threats and circumstances in America, the Supreme Court expands their understanding of the fourth amendment to apply it to the new world.

The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which was established in the seventeenth and eighteenth century English common law. Aside from the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to a strong public reaction from some cases back in the 1760s. Two of these cases happened in England and one case happened in the colonies. These cases involved some pamphleteers who would pass out pamphlets to the public in order to spread their word around. These pamphlets however ridiculed the king and his ministers. After finding this out the king issued warrants to have the pamphleteer’s homes ransacked and stripped of all their books and papers. Even back then the pamphleteers knew that their rights

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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments

Search and seizure started in the Colonial Era when England was ruled by King George. He passed many bills to collect large amounts of revenue from the American colonies. The colonists began to smuggle goods to avoid the taxes from the King. After finding out that there were goods being smuggled King George created legal search warrants called “writs of assistance.” Britain’s authorities could enter one’s home or property without any reason for doing so. They could also interrogate anyone about certain goods and use force to make others cooperate. The American colonists did not like these search and seizures and was one of the factors contributing to the American Revolution.

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

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

As humans evolve on earth, it has been inevitable to find solutions and create easier ways to manage and live life. Technology now promises the future and has revolutionized the everyday life of Americans. The rapid rate at which technology is evolving has left a gap in which the law has not been established in a clear manner. The Constitution is the law of the land and serves as a living document that grew up parallel to our nation. The law of the land itself has been adapted and molded as it prioritizes the rights and liberty of its citizens. Now a day women are allowed to vote and the legal age to vote is 18 as where in 1787 the constitution had established that only older men could vote. The science and technological progress happening

I was shock and applaud to learn the San Bernardion police let the media into Syed home. Not only was the media interfering with the crime scene, they were treating it like a circus show. I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure the media just violated Syde fourth amendment right.

Chapter seven of the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, and Jonathon Kingsbury, goes into extensive detail on the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. To briefly sum up, the fourth amendment was put into place to help protect United States citizens against unreasonable or unlawful use of search and seizures (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 198-199). That being aforementioned, many individuals believe that there are various exceptions to the fourth amendment. Is this belief true? According to the article titled, Another Hit to the Fourth Amendment by the New York Times Editorial Board,

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from illegal search and seizures. Most search and seizures that are made without a warrant are unconstitutional and invalid; however, there are many exceptions to an amendment. According to Lawyers.com “there are several exceptions to the warrant requirement that permit warrantless searches, such as the automobile exception and a search incident to lawful arrest” (Unlawful Vehicle Search & Seizures, 2017). Officer Taylor thought a minor traffic violation occurred, therefore, the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop. In the case of Whren v. the United States, the case concluded that, “the existence of probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred establishes the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops regardless of the actual motivation of the officers involved” (U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment, 2017). Based on the Whren v. the United States case, the factor that the taillight ended up being operational doesn’t conclude the stop unjust because the officer thought the light was broken.