Ms. Fallsbauer is the one who opened the door for the police officers. (R. at 5.) She refers to the apartment as “my apartment.” (R. at 5.) She believes that the apartment is hers. She signed a consent form for the police officers to be allowed to search the apartment. (R. at 5.) Each of these moments alone was sufficient enough for a reasonable person to believe that Ms. Fallsbauer had actual or apparent authority over the premises. Once all of these factors are put together, however, it presents a much stronger showing that Ms. Fallsbauer had the authority to consent to the search. Any police officer off the street could be walked through the same situation and would reasonably believe that she had the authority to consent to search of the premises. There was no reason for the police officers to ask any further questions of Ms. Fallsbauer. …show more content…
Generally, “consent to search a space includes consent to search containers within that space where a reasonable officer would construe the consent to extend to the container.” United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038, 1041 (7th Cir. 2000). A reasonable officer could assume that since under the obvious standard Ms. Fallsbauer had authority to consent, then containers within her studio apartment would fall under the search. The shoebox in question would be available to search more than other containers just because it was simply placed on top of a dresser. (R. at 5.) A reasonable officer could believe that the shoebox was fair
Said by Justice David Souter “ In the majority opinion, compared the reasonableness of such a search to a more casual interaction.” He believes that the co-occupants consent is not valid because their was the refusal of an other occupant. Beside on the Fourth Amendment it states that “ a valid warrantless entry and search of a premises when the police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, common authority over the property, and no present co-tenant objects.”
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.
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
On May 23rd 1957, three police officers representing Cleveland Ohio came to the door of Miss Mapp’s residence with the suspicion of a bombing suspect hiding out in her home. Miss Mapp and her daughter lived in a two family two story home. Upon their arrival at the house the police knocked on the door and demanded entrance from Miss Mapp. However Miss Mapp didn’t open the door and instead asked them to provide a search warrant after she called her attorney. The officers advised their headquarters of the situation and established surveillance of the home over the next few hours. The officers once again sought entrance three hours later when they forced open one of the doors to the home and went inside. It was around this time that miss mapp’s attorney arrived and witnessed the police officers enter the home. In their continued defiance of the law they did not allow Miss Mapp to see her attorney. At one point when the officers entered the hall Miss Mapp stopped them and demanded to see their search warrant. One officer held up a slip of paper claiming it to be a search warrant and Miss Mapp immediately grabbed it and stuck it in her bra. The officers wrestled Mapp to the ground and made her relinquish the paper through a struggle. The police then handcuffed her because she was being “belligerent”. The officers then escorted her upstairs and began searching through her drawers and belongings, even though they were looking for a bombing suspect. The police also looked at her photo albums and some of her personal papers. The search spread throughout the house. It’s possible that during this time they found who they believed was the bomber Virgil Ogletree inside the home. He said that he was there delivering laundry as he owned a dry cle...
Abington v. Schempp was an important case regarding the establishment of religion in American schools. Until the late twentieth century, most children were sent to schools which had some sort of religious instruction in their day. The schools taught the morals, values, and beliefs of Christianity in addition to their everyday curriculum. However, as some people began to drift away from Christianity, parents believed this was not fair to the kids and justifiable by the government. They thought public schools should not be affiliated with religion to ensure the freedom of all of the families who send students there. Such is the situation with the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington v. Schempp.
Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp ?because she had been belligerent.? Dragging Mapp upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter?s bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement.
The Court sets up their argument by listing two competing concerns which must be accommodated in defining a voluntary consent. They are the legitimate need for such searches and the requirement of assuring the absence of coercion. The Court digresses from the case at hand with the first concern. The facts of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte indicate that the suspects were stopped for the violation of having lights burned out on their automobile. Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for...
Conclusion: 7-2 decision for the United States. The search was upheld by the courts. Relying on the court’s decision in United States v. Watson (1976), Justice Rehnquist argued that since Santana was sitting on her front porch and not inside her house, she was “not in area where she had any expectation of privacy.” And at that moment, the police had probable cause to arrest and search her at that time being, their behavior was consistent with courts Watson precedent.
This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor by the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth, depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
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 Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
Under the California Penal Code, officers are granted permission to search Johnson under the conditions of his probation. While acting upon this, they discovered multiple areas of the house in which controlled substances were hidden. Officers argued that by searching Johnson without a warrant, they prevented the potential destruction of evidence.
After arriving at Miss Mapp’s residence and failed to gain permission to enter the residence the three Cleveland police officers should have gone to the DA and retrieved a real search warrant. The fact that they tried to pass off a piece of paper as a search warrant is useless and everything that they find cannot be used against her in court. All of the paraphernalia regarding the bombing that they found is useless because of the pursuant search warrant. Because Miss Mapp did not answer the door when they came back they forced their way into the house and conducted an illegal search. When Miss Mapp’s attorney arrived the police officers would not let the attorney into the house. When Miss Mapp grabbed the purported search warrant the police officers struggled with her to retrieve it and did. Miss Mapp was then placed under arrest as the police conducted a widespread search of the residence wherein obscene materials were found in a trunk in the basement. Miss Mapp was convicted of possessing these material...
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education