Warren Court Case Study

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.

What if police could barge into any house whenever they feel like it? In a world like this, citizens would have no privacy. People would have to be on alert 24/7 in case any unwelcomed visitors invited themselves inside without permission. The Background Essay: Search and Seizure: Did the Government Go Too Far? notes that the British government would inspect colonists’ houses for certain goods. In order to avoid such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment states that a search warrant and a reasonable cause is required before any government official is allowed to search another’s belongings. However, in some dire situations, a search warrant is not necessary. The Background Essay gives the examples, “…hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and/or permission of the suspect,” for when police do not need to worry about taking the time to receive a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is open to interpretation. As a result, there is a collection of various cases that need to be addressed that involve search and seizure. Such as the case of DLK. In this case, DLK’s house was searched by federal government officials with a thermal imager, which senses warmth, because he was suspected of growing marijuana. The question proposed is whether the use of such high-tech tools, like the thermal imager, count as a “search”. In a situation such as this, it is safe to say that the government went too

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

• The Court has ruled that the areas carved out which include exceptions to the basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment, commonly known as warrantless searches, may be conducted if circumstances are such that the interests of society outweigh the invasiveness of the action.

". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority.

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

Facts of the Case: On March 17, 1980, a 14 year-old student and her classmate in Piscataway Township High School had gotten caught smoking cigarettes in the public school bathroom by a teacher. This violated the school rule. The teacher took them to Theodore Choplick, the assistant principal’s office. The assistant principal then questioned girls about smoking in the bathroom. One girl admitted to smoking. However, one female denied that they had been smoking at all. The assistant principal requested that he look into the student’s purse. He then found a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, a pipe, marijuana, substantial amounts of

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

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

The 4th amendment has been tested in the Supreme Court.”Police officers in Kansas City, Missouri went to the house of Mr. Fremont Weeks and used his hidden key to enter

One of the many freedoms we enjoy, as Americans is the right that protects us from unreasonable search and seizures; as well as the necessity for a search warrant when law enforcement wishes to search someone’s property. This right is known as the Fourth Amendment and it contains two clauses: the first one is the reasonableness clause, which states that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The second part is the warrant clause, which states that a warrant must be issued upon the finding of probable cause. It must then be supported by an affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and what us intending to be found.

In Safford Arizona school on October 8th, officials strip-searched a 13-year-old girl after they received information from another student that the girl possessed "prescription strength" 400 mg ibuprofen and 200mg naproxen. While attending math, assistant principle Kerry Wilson entered the classroom and instructed Savanna Redding's to his office. Upon entering, she immediately noticed her planner placed on his desk. However, what she didn't recognize was the knife, cigarette and lighter that was contained inside it. Admitting the planner was hers, she explained to the assistant principle that she had lent the planner prior to her classmate, Marissa and had NO knowledge of what

Administrative searches have always been a controversial topic and have brought about many civil cases. Publicized warrant cases have changed the way warrantless searches are conducted. The privacy of individuals is a very sensitive subject and our right to privacy is clearly stated in the 4th amendment, Bill of Rights. The original notion in the 4th amendment is “each man’s home is a castle” (Legal Information Institute, 2014). "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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

In the world of which The Constitution and its Amendments must be followed, there has been great debate on whether a dog that is trained to sniff out certain smells such as narcotics, is considered a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, but what could be said if the place a dog sniff is done, is the outside of a home. A home, is a place that a person believes they have the most protection because that is where a person resides, but the question of whether the outside of a home holds the same protection can be debated back and forth. It is of great importance though, in the case of future discussion, to know if the outside of a home is protected under the fourth amendment from a dog sniff or whether it isn’t. To answer the question at

Commonly, the Warren Court encourages and protects the rights of people who belong to a minority group and people who live in poverty. President Kennedy and President Johnson persevered in making a more prominent life for Americans by advocating equality and decreasing the amount of poverty throughout the country. Both policies are complementary to each other so they worked flourishingly well