United States Supreme Court Decision in Arizona v. Gant Ricardo Gomez Monroe College CJ 630-102 October 25, 2015 Professor: Vericker Abstract This paper will be discussing the United States Supreme Court cases decision in Arizona v. Gant. It relates to automobile searches and how it came about in making implications for policy changes and practices based on the fourth amendment. I will compare and contrast a similar case to this and explain how this case created changes on searches of automobiles incident to arrest. In this paper, I will also explain what the fourth amendment of the constitution is and how Arizona v. Gant limits police vehicle searches. United States Supreme Court Decision in Arizona v. Gant The Supreme Court case Arizona v. Grant is a unique case and prior to this case there was New York v Belton. In the case of New York v Belton the police would conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger’s compartment whenever they arrested the driver (Moran, 2008). The police had broad authority to search a vehicle compartment whenever the driver was arrested. In Grants case it was unique and different than New York v Belton because the courts then invalidated the search of Gants automobile as a violation of his rights. He was arrested for a non-evidentiary offence. In this paper, I will be discussing what the fourth amendment of the constitution reads and how the United States Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. Gant limits police
When analyzing whether or not there was a fourth amendment issue when the police searched Mr. Chester George’s house, two major issues arise. These are whether or not the police had authority to search Mr. George’s house based on the consent of his houseguest Mr. Shelling, and whether or not the police were allowed to enter the house of a third party on the basis of checking up on a parolee, where they then incidentally
Respondent was halted by Border Patrol Agent Stoddard while driving on an unpaved street in a remote territory of southeastern Arizona. A puqrsuit of his vehicle uncovered more than 100 pounds of pot, and he was accused of ownership with purpose to appropriate. The Federal District Court denied respondent's movement to smother, refering to various certainties that gave Stoddard sensible suspicion to stop the vehicle. The Ninth Circuit turned around. In its perspective, truth particular weighing of circumstances or other multifaceted tests brought instability and capriciousness into the Fourth Amendment examination, making it important to plainly delimit the elements that an officer may consider in making stops, for example, this one. It then held that few elements depended upon by the District Court conveyed almost no weight in the sensible suspicion math and that the remaining variables were insufficient to render the stop allowable.
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
TYPE OF ACTION: This is a criminal case, did officers Trevizo violate the Fourth Amendment 's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures during a routine traffic stop for suspended registration. Johnson was search even after he comply with officer Trevizo’s command. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review. We granted certiorari, and now reverse the judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals.
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
Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much
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”.
Defendant Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, was handcuffed and then put in the back of a police car. Police officers searched his car and found cocaine in the pocket of a jacket in the backseat. Gant was charged with possession of a narcotic drug and drug paraphernalia. Gant requested motion to suppress the drug evidence, since he was secured in the back of the patrol car and posed no threat to the officers and for being arrested for an offense in which no evidence could be found in his car. He was denied his motion to suppress and was convicted, The Supreme Court of Arizona, however, upheld the motion, claiming the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
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
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
Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.
We must start in the research of the NYPD Frisk Program: Noble Cause Corruption situation with the Fourth Amendment‘s which protects a person against unreasonable searches and seizures of the U.S. Constitutional 4th Amendment. Further review of the 4th Amendment law provides guidelines for the search and seizure between police and citizens in a public place.
1. Identify and describe the three possible alternatives for applying the Fourth Amendment to “stop and frisk” situations. Also, identify which alternative the U.S. Supreme Court adopted and explain why.
To justify a stop under the Supreme Court’s Terry decision, a police officer must have “a reasonable suspicion” of some wrongdoing. In determining reasonableness, an officer “must be able to point to specific and articulable facts” that warrant the governmental intrusion; reliance on “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or [a] ‘hunch’ ” is not permissible. Furthermore, the scope of any resulting police search must be narrowly tailored to match the original reason for the stop. The Court emphasized that a search must always be “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justif[ied] its initiation.”
Search and seizure Supreme Court cases, such as Terry v. Ohio and Mapp v. Ohio, allowed individuals to protect their rights of law enforcement officers from searching into property without a warrant. A search and seizure must be conducted correctly exactly how the 4th Amendment is presented. On the other hand, it is very important for the law enforcement to intrude and stop a potential threat to harm society. For instance, it is different if a treacherous terrorist was hiding in a neighborhood with armed weapons. However, national security takes it granted with citizen’s rights without a probable cause or to stop and frisk. Some law enforcement officers assume and overpower citizens without thinking about their rights. The National security,