Utah V Stif Case Summary

On October 31, 1963 a Cleveland Police Detective stopped and arrested three men outside a department store window. The officer charged two of the men with carrying concealed weapons. One of the men involved in this stop and frisk, John W. Terry, challenged the ruling, stating that it was against his 4th Amendment rights to be searched for weapons by an off duty police officer without probable cause for arrest. On June 10, 1968 the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the policeman stating he had more than enough reason to stop these men and conduct a search. This case has been used as a guideline in many other rulings since 1968 that involve what may or may not be an “unreasonable search and seizure” under the 4th Amendment.

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

There are two cases that are being compared; New Jersey v. T.L.O. and Safford v. Redding. The rulings in both of these cases were just. In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O. the defendant (T.L.O.) was found guilty for smoking cigarettes and for possessing drug paraphernalia in her purse. In court, her lawyer argued that the way that her purse was searched, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since she was a delinquent and her rights were not, in fact, violated, she was sentenced to probation for one year. In the Safford v. Redding case the defendant was strip-searched for ibuprofen by her school officials, which was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She was proven innocent from her charges and in turn, she filed suit against her school district and the school officials involved in the case. Redding claimed that her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Both cases have a few things in common as well as many differences.

In the court case SMYTH v. LUBBERS, 398 F.Supp 777 (1975) the plaintiff’s rooms were searched without a warrant or probable cause by campus police officers that were acting as officials of the state. They seized a substance that was alleged to be marijuana and proceeded to arrest the plaintiffs. The court held that the search and seizure was illegal because, that two of the campus police officers were acting as representatives of the county police at the time, and there are rules in the student handbook at that college in place to protect students from illegal search and seizure, and those rule were not followed. Just like in Jones v. Rohward University, Deary Jones was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. This search and seizure is

If I had been a justice on the Supreme Court, I would have to say that the major problem with this case is that Albert Leon should not use the fourth amendment as a way to help him in this particular case because I feel that the police officers did have enough evidence and support to issue a search warrant. The police officers were just trying to do their job and used a search warrant to Albert Leon’s house, which they found a large amount of illegal drugs. I would have to say that would have been enough evidence for me to see that Leon should go to jail and be punished for even having illegal drugs in his possession. The police officers had done more investigation and found out that Leon has been arrested before in 1980. Leon’s lawyer felt

In August 2009, the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans a non-profit organization that works to preserve the memory and reputation of soldiers who fought for the confederacy in the Civil War, applied to have a new specialty license plate issued by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicle. The proposed license plate had two confederate flags on it. Texas SCV sued in federal district court claiming their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated.

In United States v. Obregon, the Tenth Circuit was the first appellate court to address the issue of standing in the search of a rental vehicle being used by an unauthorized driver. United States v. Obregon, 748 F.2d 1371 (10th Cir. 1984). In that case, the defendant was driving a rental vehicle and was stopped at a police checkpoint. Id. at 1373. The officer determined that the defendant was not listed on the rental agreement and the vehicles license plate was expired. Id. The officer conducted a search of the vehicle and found cocaine. Id. In an attempt to suppress the evidence the defendant argued that the search was a violation of his Fourth amendment right. Id. at 1374. The court held that the defendant did not have standing to challenge

The Mapp vs Ohio case was when police officers in a Cleveland got information that a suspect in a bombing case and illegal equipment might be found in Dollree Mapp house. Three officers went to the his house and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. So Two officers left, and one stayed. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. They had a random paper, and broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the fake warrant away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.” The police did not find the bombing suspect or the betting equipment.They did find pornographic material in a trunk that a previous tenant had left behind. “She was arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty of possession of pornographic

This case provided a clear reason to conduct the traffic stop, Officer Stoddard, observed the actions of the driver and its passengers. He had a couple concerns; the vehicle which was commonly used for drug transportation, the driver and his demeanor, and the erratic driving that took place after they passed him. Officer Stoddard also testified that the defendant then attempted to avoid the Border checkpoint by turning down the last road possible before reaching the checkpoint. These particular actions brought about the reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. He followed the rules of his agency after conducting the stop, he was granted the permission to search the vehicle where he found then recovered the notated findings. Through

We have the court case Florida v Jardines. This court case is about Joelis Jardines and how there was suspicion that her house was being used to grow marijuana. Two detectives went to the front of Jardine’s house, and the detective dog scented the use of narcotics, particularly marijuana. The detective applied for a search warrant, which was issued. The search confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside Jardine’s home. Jardine was then arrested, and argued that the detective dog’s sniff was an impermissible search under the fourth amendment of the Constitution.

Two Utah sisters, Maria and Jan Brady posted a message on Facebook in support of anti-globalization and anti-genetically organism (GMO) activists against McDonalds restaurants, who had incited riots in Europe. The sister’s message, sent to over 500 “friends”, asking them to join the sisters in two days at 10 p.m. at a McDonalds near the sister’s apartment for a “night of riot, pillage, and fun”. A secondary message was sent out asking the participants to bring items that could be used as weapons or cause property damage.

In an earlier decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in, Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948) acknowledged that “the officer did not have probable cause to make an arrest until he entered the room where he detected the odor of burning opium.” The Court also stated, “The warrantless search could not be sustained as being incident to a valid arrest and that it violated the Fourth Amendment.” The police were not authorized to breakdown the door, but were constitutionally required to present what they knew at that time to an independent magistrate to determine whether the police possessed probable cause to issue a warrant. The Courts also acknowledged in Mincey v. Arizona, 437, U.S. 385, 394, (1948), that “searches of a home are presumed unreasonable except when “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

In 2006 the police received an anonymous tip in Salt Lake City that Edward Strieff Jr was selling drugs from his car. Police officer Douglas Fackrell had observed Strieff for a week before detaining him. The officer later discovered that Edward Strieff Jr. had a major warrant out for his arrest due to a traffic violation. After being ran under the system, Fackrell decided to search Strieff and found two different kinds of drugs in his pockets. He was then charged for drug offences.

In the examination of the case the courts utilized three important cases to justify the scope of the automobile exception rule. The case that was examined during the trial by the U.S. Supreme Court was Carroll v. United States (1925), United States v. Ross (1982), and California v. Acevedo (1991). Carroll was used because it was first to rule on automobile exception. The significances of the Carroll ruling was evidence could be obtained without search warrant even if a suspect hides any illegal objects or drugs in their vehicle (Carroll v. United States, 1925, p.267) the second case examined by the court was United States v. Ross (1982). The significant of this case was as long as law enforcement has follow the probable cause standards , an officer is allow to search any container located in automobile (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999). However, the scope of the search had to meet the requirements if a regular warrant was issue. The third case of the automobile search of the exception rule is California v. Acevedo. In California v. Acevedo the courts pointed out the most important factor was in this case that supported Wyoming was if the officer has less probable cause could justify more any wide-ranging of searches of

“Anecdotal” evidence gathered by David A. Harris, of the University Of Toledo College Of Law recounts the nightmarish story of SFC Rossano V. Gerald, a “highly decorated soldier and a black man of Panamanian descent,” as he drove with his son into Oklahoma. Gerald was stopped two times within the span of thirty minutes. In the course of the “second stop,” according to Harris, Gerald and his son, Gregory, were kept for two hours while the police searched his car, intimidated the sergeant’s twelve-year-old son with the police dog, put them in a car with no air conditioning and told them that the dog was there to attack if they tried to get away. Realizing they could be breaking the law themselves, the officers turned off the “patrol car’s video evidence camera,” in the middle of the incident (Harris). The abuse that Gerald and his son experienced is not an apparition, it is standard operating procedure for police officers, Harris explains. Police officers are empowered by the Supreme Court to search cars for drugs as a part of the “war on drugs.” The problem is that “African Americans and Latinos” are targeted for such searches; their rights are being violated (Harris). In the face of data collected by the police, their denial of racial profiling persists (Harris). The