The Fourth Amendment Of Us Constitution

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.

The officer did have reasonable suspicion to make contact and after locating the weapons he had his probable cause. There are four situations that Probable Cause is used; involving arrests with a warrant, arrests without a warrant, searched of items with a warrant, and searches of items without a warrant (V., D. C., & Walker, J. T., 2015). Most of my encounters with individuals occurs on traffic stops; which require probable cause to stop them. My probable cause could be speeding, reckless driving or any traffic violation in the traffic law manual. Once probable cause is established then contact is made with the driver. If there is reason to believe that there is more than a traffic violation, such as an officer smelling marijuana inside the vehicle, then he or she can now have access into the vehicle. My probable cause to get into the vehicle is based on my training and experience that there was or is illegal narcotics inside the vehicle. If there is no probable cause to get into the vehicle and an officer feels there is more to the traffic stop than speeding, then the officer needs to build his reasonable suspicion to figure out what the driver is up to. For example, one night on patrol, it was believed that there was a possible drug transaction going on in the

The following exceptions do not require probable cause: stop and frisk, incident to arrest, consent, inventory and administrative searches. The most common exception patrol officers encounter in the field is the stop and frisk also commonly known as

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

Finally, consent search very supportive to police officer when they get consent to search the person property because instead of having the police officer getting warrant they can just search specific place for instances like a truck of a vehicle. For example, Strauss, Rebecca. Author of “We can do this the Easy Way Or the Hard Way: The use of Deceit to Induce Consent Searches." States, “Once the owner agrees to the search, the police have received consent to search any area in his home where they reasonably may find evidence of the crime they claimed to be investigating. Consent search is like general warrant fails to meet the fourth amendment particularity requirement because it to general. Strauss, Rebecca also states, “Like general warrants,

The legal right is with the officers which allows them to search passenger compartments which are found in the suspect’s vehicle. If officer feels that adequate suspicion exist, they have every right to conduct limited suspect search. Vehicles can be searched by the officials without a warrant, if they have the probable cause with them as per the fourth amendment.

When it comes to Search and Seizure, allot of people think that law enforcement should not be allowed to search or seize property. I have heard many arguments against this subject, people stating that law enforcement officers go too far or have no right to search someone’s property such as their vehicle. Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion it requires that a combination of facts makes it more likely than not that items sought are where police believe them to be. In addition to establishing probable cause for a search, a warrant must contain the reasons for obtaining it, the names of people presenting the affidavits, what is specifically being sought and the signature of the judge issuing it.

Search incident to Lawful Arrest- if an individual happens to be arrested lawfully they are no longer a free citizen therefore a police officer may search their persons and any areas that are within their reach. An example can be Mary is arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. She was stopped after swerving through the road and going at a very slow speed. A search of her vehicle found narcotics in the passenger side of the vehicle. She was herself and that was within her wingspan.

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

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.

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

The officer that was responsible for this was Sgt. Michael Kite of Cranston Police Department in Rhode Island. The reason why is because he didn’t have a warrant to search the phone and without the warrant

The fourth amendment stops the police from unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that the police cannot search or take your items without a reason. If the police pulls you over and searches your car without a reason, then they are violating the fourth amendment and could be punished for it. Police can easily avoid this amendment, but it can still be enforced if they do not give a logical or reasonable reason for searching your items.

In this essay I will be describing some key legislation that has been put in place to protect citizens’ rights within society.

Although Chimel v. California involved a warrantless search of the defendant’s home, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case undoubtedly impacted the future of vehicle searches. In 1969, the Supreme Court held that police are permitted to conduct searches of an individual and the area in which an individual has immediate control (Ruiz, 2014). The Supreme Court’s justification was that it is reasonable to search the arrestee and the area within his or her immediate control, incident to arrest, to enhance the arresting officer’s safety by ensuring there is no weapon available to harm the arresting officer, and to preserve the destruction of evidence (Ruiz, 2014).