US 646: A Case Study

The Supreme Court held that without a warrant the police may not search a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. A warrantless search is only

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.

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

cause or a warrant when one was needed. Because they had no warrant the items found was

To understand this situation I decided to look up cases that reflect on their fourth amendment being violated. The case that stood out to me the most was Mapp vs. Ohio. In 1957, police officers received an anonymous tip that Mapp was hiding a wanted man because he needed to be questioned for a bombing. Then Police officers went to Mapp’s house and wanted to search her house. She then denied them entry, because she needed to see a warrant to let them in. After some hours went by, the police officers forcibly entered her home and recalled that they received a warrant. Then they proceeded with the search and found some books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. Then during her court trial she appealed her sentence, because they did not receive a valid search warrant and the police officers violated her rights. Even though they found her having possessions that were illegal, they could not hold it against her. The issues with search and seizure are usually towards the issue of violating our rights. One of the rights that we are getting violated is the right if privacy. It is the interest in being free from observation that matters to us, because they always try to know what people are saying and or doing without probable cause.

The fourth amendment states that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” cannot be searched without a warrant. If so many people own a cell phone, wouldn’t they be no different than documents or other pieces of property that conceal private information? Cell phones contain just as much information about a person as any paper would. A cell phone is a piece of private property that one may use on an everyday basis. Mr. Riley is no different. His cell phone was his property that was searched illegally, and although he did commit crimes that were shown in his cell phone, the police still needed a warrant to search the phone. Based on the 4th amendment, I have concluded that the San Diego Police Department’s search of David Riley’s cell phone was unconstitutional and

Another case that establishes the premise for determining the validity of the search includes United States v. Matlock. The question before the Court in Matlock was whether the third party's consent for the police to search the defendant's house was "legally sufficient" to render the evidence admissible at trial. Police officers arrested the defendant in his front yard, but did not request his permission to search the house. Instead, some of the police officers approached the house and requested permission to search from Mrs. Graff, who lived in the house with defendant. Mrs. Graff consented to the search and the officers found nearly $5,000 in cash in a closet. Both the district court and the court of appeals excluded the evidence from the trial, finding that Mrs. Graff did not have the authority to consent to the search. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to settle this evidentiary issue. Justice White, for the Court, espoused the

For a search and seizure to be done the officer has to obtain a warrant, also known as probable cause. By doing this the Fourth Amendment is begin followed, which reads, “The right of people to 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, supports by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or thing to be seized” (Constitution.org/2009). An individual also has the right to protect their belongings against unwarranted searches by police officers. Obtaining a warrant is very important because any evidence that is illegally seized by a police officer cannot to be used in court. This is called the exclusionary rule. It was established in 1914 (Criminal Justice today/2009.Ch7). The plain view doctrine occurs when the evidence is simply in plain view. In this case no warrant is needed. In other words, anything that the officer happens to see at the crime scene can be used as evidence. Another time when a warrant is not necessary is when there is an emergency or when the officer has reasons to believe someone in the home is hurt. These situations are referred to as emergency searches.

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).

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

A possible civil action stemming from the provided scenario would arise as a violation of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Most lawsuits of violations of a subject’s Fourth Amendment rights are against unreasonable search, seizure and any use of force is properly analyzed as a seizure (U.S. Code, 1983).

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 precise definition for the term “search” does not exist under current federal law. “The supreme court first defined a search in terms of whether a physical invasion occurred in a constitutionally protected area.” Does the warrantless search and seizure of cellphone records violate the Fourth Amendment? The 4th amendment is an important bill of right for citizens but unfortunately its drawback is prominent in that it promotes crime, puts society’s safety at risk and makes police job complicated at the expense of extreme privacy.

In 1994, proposition 16 was proposed to raise the requirements a notch, and the same howls of protest were heard as had been heard when Proposition 48 was offered. Leroy Walker was president of The Athletics Congress in 1986, and he does not believe the doomsayers concerning the change in requirements. he says that the evidence shows that student-athletes will rise to the occasion when expectations are raised and remain reasonable. This includes the efforts of black athletes:

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