Futile search

illegally search. In other words someone can’t just run up to you and search you they have to have a good reason too search you.. The fourth amendment however is not guaranteed against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

This project has to do with the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment has to do with unreasonable search and seizure of a person or his belongings such as house or car without probable cause or a warrant. The case I’m reviewing is State of Rhode Island vs. Michael Patino. The reason I have chosen this case is because it involves illegal search and seizure of cell phone text messages which violates the 4th amendment. The reason for the violation was because the officer gained evidence without a warrant

“If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view

Background- Four men were arrested in April 2011 in connection to series of armed robberies-- to which-- one confessed and gave the FBI his and other’s phone number. It was used it to request orders from judges to obtain “transactional records” for each phone number per the Stored Communications Act. Records like date/time/locations of calls were taken through their connections to cell towers. It all incriminated Timothy Carpenter (Petitioner) of robbery (interstate commerce), who appealed his 4th

unreasonable search and seizures. Law enforcement are required to show probable cause to be issued a warrant which grants law enforcement to conduct a legal search. There are a few exceptions when a warrant is not required, but probable cause is still needed. There could be several issues that arise with law enforcement seizing evidence from the passenger. Did law enforcement have a reasonable belief that the suspect had control of a weapon and that the suspect was also dangerous? Was the search of the

Facts After being told the details of a supposed getaway car from a robbery, the police saw the car and began to drive after it (Rakas V. Illinois 439 U.S. 128 (1978)). The officers then took off after the car to conduct a search passed on probable cause. After completing the search the officers found a shot gun and shells within the car (Rakas V. Illinois 439 U.S. 128 (1978)). The owner of the vehicle had no correlations to the robbery, so the passengers took responsibility of the gun and ammo (Rakas

Amendments. The first amendment I will explain is the procedural rights for the Fourth Amendment (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The fourth amendment protects a person and their personal effects from unreasonable search and seizure. Unless there is probable cause for the warrant. A search is when law enforcement is inspecting or exploring person or their property to discover evidence of a crime or are accused of a crime. Seizures are when someone commits a crime and their property is taken into custody

Mapp V Ohio Court Case Summary The event took place in Cleveland, Ohio, when Dollree Mapp’s house was entered by police officers, who weren’t carrying any official search warrants. The police believed she was sheltering a suspected bomber; no evidence or bodies were found, but police discovered a chest containing explicit pictures stored within her basement - these pictures violated state law. With this discovery, the police arrested Mapp due to the vulgar images they obtained. Once arrested, Dollree

on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure had been violated and therefore, the gun should not be admissible evidence in court. The trial court rejected the motion and Terry was convicted. III. The Issue Presented and the Court’s Decision - Did Officer McFadden act with reasonableness to initiate an investigatory stop and frisk of Terry? Yes. - Does an officer have the lawful authority to search for weapons without a warrant or probable cause if he or she has

Under the 4th Amendment of the United States, citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. One exception is through consent to the search. Petitioner Fallsbauer will argue that the consent his mother gave was ambiguous, and because his mother’s consent was ambiguous the consent was not valid and therefore the police had a legal duty to clarify the ambiguity. Specifically, the officers needed to clarify the ambiguity of her consent regarding searching in the shoe box where the