Fourth Amendment Essay

should. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures, arrests and surveillance by the government ("Fourth Amendment," n.d., p. 1). This means the only reason the government may arrest, surveil, or search a person or property is if there is enough articulable facts to warrant

DuPont1 Dylan DuPont 10/22/16 CJA 356 criminal evidence Week 4 final paper Horton vs. California On June 4th, 1990, Terry Brice Horton vs. California was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 7-2 that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless seizure of evidence, which is granted due to the plain view doctrine. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures. The victim was Erwin

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. _____ (2011) Facts: A number of police officers set up a sting in which there were to be buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex in Lexington, Kentucky. Undercover Officer Gibbons watched the deal from an undercover car in a parking lot not far the from the sale area. After the deal took place, Office Gibbons radioed several other police officers. He instructed them to close in on the suspects. He advised the officers to “hurry and get there” because the suspect

without a warrant as long as probable cause is present and the person is guilty of a felony (3). In addition, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause in all state prosecutions. Hence, the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the states through the Due Process

lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances (FindLaw, 2014). First, this paper explains what the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights means. Second, this paper gives examples of court cases concerning search and seizure of vehicles and the Fourth Amendment. Third, this paper examines the Richmond VA 2nd Precinct Police Departments policies, procedures, and practice

obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search the shooter’s iPhone, which had been locked with a standard passcode. The FBI’s litigation strategy backfired when Apple decided to commit its resources to getting the order vacated. The Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”2 was technically not at issue in the San Bernardino case. Nonetheless

weapons from any harm. To also seize weapons from any harm into resisting arrest or to be able to flee, lastly to prevent the destruction of evidence or concealment. There is also consent searches where one waives their right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, giving the right to an officer to search and seize any belonging seem fit for either harm to an officer or the public. Last there is probable cause searches and

Professor William Bower November 27, 2011 Abstract This observations will present an in service core curriculum re-evaluating an argument on the procedure by which an investigative permit is required and released that gives emphasis to the Fourth Amendment needs. Also, the definition of probable cause and its principles in which it is assembled will be discussed. There are two kinds of investigation that do not necessitate a warrant which will also be enclosed in this paper as well as concentrating

conducting domestic surveillance on Verizon. Companies like Verizon, can’t simply shut off the eyes the government and they also cannot protect their users, now violated, Fourth Amendment rights. The use of domestic surveillance by the American government must not be implemented, in order to prevent the violation of American’s Fourth Amendment right, to ensure privacy for the American people, and due to American’s distrustful views toward domestic surveillance and the NSA. The U.S government should not monitor

At the urging of her attorney, Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that her First Amendment right had been violated. Her argument was that she was well within her rights to have been in the possession of the explicit material found during the search of her home. Interestingly enough, when her case went before the Supreme Court it was not the First Amendment that was addressed, but the Fourth Amendment. The argument supporting Mapp highlighted the fact that a search warrant was never produced