Fourth Amendment Essay

Missouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because he had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred

Missouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because he had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred

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

New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) In my case overview decision, I chose New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985). This case there was a high school student who felt she was searched illegally. T.L.O. was a high school student. School officials looked through her handbag presuming she had cigarettes. The officials found cigarettes, a little measure of pot, and a paper containing the names of students who owed T.L.O. cash. T.L.O. was accused of having pot on her person in a school. Before trial, T.L.O. moved the courts

public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Citation: New Jersey v. T. L. O. 469 U.S. 325 105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U. S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083. Facts of the Case: On March 17, 1980, a 14 year-old student and her

is an encroachment of Ohio’s state code, so Mapp was arrested and convicted for this violation. Dollree Mapp appealed her case to the Ohio Supreme Court on the basis that it was an intrusion on her rights defined in the Fourth Amendment.

CASE: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) ISSUE: Can law enforcement officials use deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed fleeing felon without violating the Fourth Amendment? FACTS: On October 3, 1974, two officers were dispatched to a burglary call. Upon arrival, one officer witnessed a person, Edward Garner, running from the scene. One officer concluded Garner was unarmed and ordered him to stop. Instead of stopping, Garner began climbing a fence. The officer fired shots at Garner

cause need to achieve a search warrant (Search and Seizure: Origins, Text, And History). This effectively made Fourth Amendment law standard while ensuring that probable cause was needed to achieve a warrant. Today’s search and seizure law were made by the founding fathers of America who felt that government should be ruled by the people and not the other way around. This amendment specifically gives the right to citizens of the United States to be secure in their homes and belonging

TYPE OF ACTION: Review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a lower court ruling that evidence should be suppressed as a result of a violation of the Fourth Amendment failed to give Miranda before questioning. The state (Withrow) sought to overturn the motion to suppress that was upheld by the U.S. District Court of Appeals. FACTS OF THE CASE: On April 10, 1985, two police questioned respondent Robert Allen Williams about a double homicide. The officers questioned and searched Williams but did not read

because the illegally obtained evidence was the basis of the prosecution's case. The story of the birth and evolution of the exclusionary rule is complex and demonstrates the unique problems the Supreme Court has had to face when interpreting the Fourth Amendment." Dewan, S. (2014). Article by Journalist Shaila Dewan (November 9, 2014) As Shaila Dewan stated in her article from the New York Times; “Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize”. The practice of civil forfeiture