In Michigan v. Clifford, "the utility of requiring a magistrate to evaluate the grounds for a search following a fire is so limited that the incidental protection of an individual's privacy interests simply does not justify imposing a warrant requirement;" therefore, the search of the basement was reasonable (1984). The issues of that case revolve around the unreasonable search of the second floor of the home which required a criminal warrant because at that moment the arson inspectors had reasonable suspicion that the origin of the fire may have been arson (1984). Moreover, the effect and papers on the second floor of the Clifford's dwelling is protected under the 4th amendment (U.S. Const. amend. IV). In U.S. v. Gargotto, to reiterate,
In the case Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp 988 (1976), the plaintiff James Morale, who is a student at New Hampshire Technical Institute, room was entered and searched by officials representing the dorm. There was no probable cause for them to enter his room, and while there they seized what they alleged to be “purple haze”. The court ruled that a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless NHTI can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution. The search must further an interest that is separate and distinct from that served by New Hampshire's criminal law. Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's
In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
... is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake.” And he concluded that given the mission of public schools, and the circumstances of this case, the searches required by the school board's policy were “reasonable” and thereby permissible under the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
The article “Is It Truly an Emergency? Missouri v. McNeely and Warrantless Blood Draws” discusses the constitutionality of warrantless blood draws in conjunction with automobile accidents that may or may not be the result of driving under the influence of alcohol. In Missouri v. McNeely the U.S. Supreme court approached the constitutional requirement that all searches must be conducted with probable cause within regards to the accident to support any arrest based on driving under the influence. The article reviews the case of Schmerber v. California as well in its critical overview of the implications of the Fourth Amendment
The Supreme Court in Florida v. Jardines (2013) held that the police taking a drug dog onto the porch of someone’s home without a warrant violates the homeowners Fourth Amendment rights. This case affects every police department in the United States as well as making more stringent guidelines as to what is considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
The court case that I chose as the precedent for this scenario is Brandenburg v. Ohio. In this court case, a leader from the Ku Klux Klan made a speech at a Klan rally in Ohio and was charged with terrorism, sabotage, and violence.This conviction violates Brandenburgs right to free speech. In the scenario and the court case both Ku Klux Klan members were convicted of a crime that violated the state law which does not allow the advocacy of crime, sabotage, violence and unlawful methods of terrorism. Also in the scenario John Doe is fined $1500 and sentances to 5 years in prison. Both cases are very similar down to the point that they both deal with the Ku Klux Klan. After reading the court case I believe that the punishments given to John Doe
Two case rulings have helped fuel the incarceration rate among African Americans, Terry v. Ohio and Whren v. United States. The Terry v. Ohio case in 1968 presents serious questions regarding the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation between citizens and the police officers when investigating suspicious circumstances on the street. The Supreme Court ruled that the practice of stopping and searching a citizen without a warrant or probable cause based on a reasonable suspicion that they are involved in criminal activity was authorized. This practice is known as the Terry Stop and is a nationwide police practice that has caused numerous legal problems for police departments and young Black citizens. Continuing with the trend of African
When deciding Michigan v. Bryant, Justice Sotomayor focuses on these two precedents the most, Crawford v. Washington, and Davis v. Washington. She starts the court’s opinion by stating the meaning of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Justice Sotomayor cites, “In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him” (Michigan v. Bryant). Then, she explains that the Fourteenth Amendment allows the Confrontation Clause to apply to the states. She goes on and talks about Ohio v. Roberts, and how this case reflects on the admissibility of statements when the witness is not available and their reliability:
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).