The Issue Of Concern : Warrantless Gps Devices A Violation Of The Fourth Amendment

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.

Evidence that is illegally obtained cannot be used in a criminal trial and officers must have a valid warrant before conducting searches or seizing evidence (Weeks v. U.S., 1914).

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

After reading the article titled, “The Challenge of Policing in a Democratic Society: A Personal Journey Toward Understanding” by Officer Charles H. Ramsey, I was able to relate with his view points and argument. In this article Ramsey, who was a sergeant for the Chicago Police Department discussed the core of ethics. His main example was the Holocaust in Europe during the 1930’s and 1940’s. Ramsey stated police officers worked together with the Nazi soldiers during this time and in return were not protecting their citizens. Similarly, when the police made no intervention to the killings and hangings of blacks in the south of the United States during the Civil War era.

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths (Brief for Respondent 3). In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search warrant. While the Petitioner would like the answer to be yes in both cases,

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

Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of certain papers, books, documents etc. Rules are not violated in it. There must be probable reason because in order to arrest a particular person without a search warrant. It possesses an oath or affirmation from the government. It has two fundamental rights as Right to privacy and Right to freedom. Search occurs when it has a correct reason that was obligated by the government people. Private individuals are violated from this amendment. A seizure happens the owner must has a right documents with him on his own property, if not the documents is seized and the person gets arrested. Sometimes the property belongs to other possessor but in mistake reasonable person gets involved in the task. The banning of unreasonable searches can violate many things to be happen.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

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 Fourth Amendment establishes that for any government official to search a person's home, bank, business, papers, or personal items, he must have a search warrant issued by a judge. The Bill of Rights gives to citizens’ certain rights and freedoms, and specifically, the Fourth Amendment protect them from illegal searches and seizures. “The Fourth Amendment does not guarantee against all searches and seizures; only those are deemed

It was also the fact that whether or not the evidence was retrieved when the law enforcement illegally attached a tracking device to the vehicle could be used to convict Jones on drug charges who was sentence to life in prison. According to the Fourth Amendment citizens have the right to be secured in their houses, papers and effects against an reasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated an no warrants shall be issue upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized.

Whether evidence that was gathered in an unreasonable search/seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment should be admissible in State court.

Is evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures” admissible as evidence in criminal procedures?

The fourth amendment was inherent based on a long correlation concerning the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The protection, that it brought was a warrant based on probable cause. Which has caused for the Supreme Court to permit countless forms of under the administrative justification. The actions that are considered include (1) inventories, (2) inspections, (3) checkpoints, (4) school discipline, (5) “searches” of government employees’ offices, (6) drug and alcohol testing, and (7) parole and probation

Looking at the facts presented in this case, Tommy Transmitter was observed in an alleyway behind a store by a law enforcement officer at 2350 hours on a June night. Officers did not note suspicious activity, moreover, it is not presented that Tommy Transmitter was observed conducting any illegal