The Man Of The Men

Mr. Grant, an 18-year-old black man, was walking down a street in a high-crime area where he attracted police officers’ attention. He was stopped and questioned by police officers. Then, Mr. Grant became more suspicious to the police when he started acting very nervous. Mr. Grant was requested name, address and was asked to put hands in front of him. Mr. Grant admitted he was carrying a firearm and weed and he was immediately arrested, searched and advised his legal rights.

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

The question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

Terry appealed the case, claiming that the guns found should be inadmissible in court proceedings as evidence since his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where it was it was ruled that his rights had not been violated.

Upon arrival and after all parties were detained and searched for weapons Sergeant Kincaid and I were advised by the victim in this case, Thomas Fitzgerald that the suspect, Duane Fisher had pointed a pistol at him and his daughter, Marrissa Rohrbach and had laid the firearm down on a piece of farm equipment prior to our arrival. At this time I was able to locate a loaded Browning Target Shooting Pistol inside a holster on top of a tractor attachment approximately

On June 26, 2015, Mr. Steve Gerecke, an Albuquerque, New Mexico resident, confronted six youths allegedly attempting to burglarize his home after gaining access through the garage with a remote control removed from his wife’s car. The group of youth appeared to have been the same roving mob reported earlier to the police. Witnesses and police reports complained of burglarized homes and cars with the removal credit cards, cellphone, keys, and other valuables. In addition to the burglaries, the group allegedly committed grand the auto. Upon the confrontation of Mr. Gerecke and the youth, an escalation of bravado ensued. At this time, one of the youth armed with pistol, shot Mr. Gerecke multiple times killing him in the driveway of his home. Well

that the suspects were armed. The court found that the frisk was reasonable under the Fourth

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”.

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court saying that the search did violate Savanna Fourth Amendment right because no drugs were suspected to be concealed in her bra and underwear so they had no reason . The judge felt the school officials were not liable and entitled to qualified immunity because school officials were just trying to prevent drugs distributed throughout the school.

Mapp appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1961. The case basically came down to this fundamental question: may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings? 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?and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.? The Fourth Amendment, however, does not define when a search or seizure is

There are a lot of incidents that happen between police, and criminals. Always a mix up, confusion, miscommunication, and sadly, police brutality, but police always get the benefit of the doubt because of lack of evidence. A incident happened way back in around 2009, it was actually on January 1st. A twenty-two year old young man named Oscar Grant was shot at Fruitvale Station, by an officer that “thought” he was using a taser, but actually used a gun. If that officer would have had a body camera on, he would’ve been more aware of what he was doing, and he would have been caught sooner because they would have been able to see, and tell that Grant wasn’t being defiant.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. 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 (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

Despite the academic squabbling that caused some articles to read as petty personal disagreements, Mungo Man remained a present and prominent figure in these texts of public discussion. This is undoubtedly due to his continued personification by both Jim Bowler and journalists. While the articles were primarily concerned with numbers, dates and the radiocarbon methods that achieved them, they did not make the mistake of displacing the narrative’s characters from public view. This offers one explanation as to why earlier representations of Mungo Man were not as lasting, and why images of him in the 1990s and early twenty-first century continued to work their way into the public consciousness. While the dates of Mungo Man’s time depth are important, their meaning remains unsurprisingly untranslatable when it is not tethered to a personified image.

The theoretical foundations for recognizing and adopting the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment are that “if courts were to permit the use of illegally seized evidence, they would be condoning and may even become an indirect participants in the violation of Fourth Amendment”, “courts should not sanction Fourth Amendment illegality by allowing prosecutors to introduce the fruits of illegal searches conducted by police agencies” “and when the incentive is remove for law enforcement officials to violate the amendment is removed, future illegal seizures should be deterred and reduced” (Ingram p.82).