In the Supreme Court case, Chunon Bailey vs United States, it deliberate on Bailey 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) was violated when the police officer detain Bailey before the warrant was executed. (updated) Bailey was living in an apartment where police obtained a warrant to search the premise for cocaine and firearms. When the police arrived to the area, Bailey was seen moving into the vehicle to which the police followed him. As Bailey was a mile away from the warrant area, Bailey was pulled over and was pat down to find a key in his pocket. Denying the key belong to Bailey himself, he was handcuffed and returned to the scene to which the key opened the apartment’s door. Police officers obtained a warrant to search Bailey’s …show more content…
Bailey was not in the area of the search warrant execution and showed no awareness of the police’s presence. Also, Bailey did not pose any threat or suspicious activity when the officer begin to follow him. The search of Bailey was unlawful but the seizures was taken into account if it was lawful. The search involved with the apartment and the seizure involved with Bailey. Because officers believe that the seizures was approipate to preserve the integrity of the evidence and safety of the officers when Bailey was away from the search area. Michigan vs Summers case shared a relationship with this case to determine the solution to Bailey’s case. Summers’s case displayed the three rules of officers safety and actions to see if occupants can detain the occupant lawfully. The case has similar scenarios but still major difference that was looked into and determined by the judges. Some examples such as safety of the officers. …show more content…
Search and seizure is a procedure used by police officers to search a person/place for any relevance to the crime with suspicion. In Bailey case, the Michigan vs. Summers had a strong relationship with the case to prove Bailey detainment was justifiable as both case scenario share a similar scenario. Both cases involved police officer obtaining a search warrant to obtain contraband evidence in a household. Both also involved an individual within the premise of the area leaving the household. This is the difference come across as George Summer, in the Summer vs Michigan, was encountered with the police as Summer descended from the steps. Summer was asked to assist them and eventual detained in the premises to prevent evidence contamtion. He was then searched after the officer found cocaine in the apartment and found drugs in Summer possession. In Bailey case he “left” before the search warrant was executed. So the search did not started and the search and seizure was questionable as Bailey did not pose any suspicion nor threat to the search at all. In the end, Bailey was unlawfully
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
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).
McNeely moved to suppress the evidence in the trial court and the court agreed because there was no emergency permitting the use of exigency as a factor in obtaining evidence without a warrant. The Government appealed, and the State Court affirmed, using the previous court case, Schmerer v. California, as guidance. A similar DUI
The amendment that raises my own eye is the Search and Seizures Clause of the Fourth Amendment. Like most of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment has its origins in 17th and 18th century, English common law. Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment's origins can be traced precisely it arose out of a strong public reaction to three cases from the 1760s, two decided in England and one in the colonies. Two cases from England, “Entick vs. Carrington” and “Wilkes vs. Wood”, involved plaintiffs who produced pamphlets criticizing the government. During the arresting, officials seized books and papers from the plaintiff’s property. A court agreed that the officers’ actions constituted trespassing. The third case occurred within the colonies and involved “writs of assistance,” which permitted officials to search for smuggled goods without specify which house or what goods.
The case between Terry and the state of Ohio presented major concern for the Fourth Amendment which deals with unreasonable searches and seizure without a warrant. On October 31, 1963, Officer McFadden stopped and searched John W. Terry, Richard Chilton, and another individual for weapons during a night in the state of Ohio because he suspected that they were planning on robbing a store because they kept walking up and down in front of the store. The officer approached them announcing that he was a police officer and decided to search them for weapons for his own safety. The officer soon found out that Terry and Richard Chilton both had a concealed weapon with them and he confiscated the guns and both were taken into custody. The third individual
DLK had no way of disposing all of the evidence without being suspicious about his actions because his house was not on hot pursuit, DLK was in his own house and not endangering public safety, he did not allow the agents to scan his home for the signs of heat used to grow marijuana, and he was not arrested in public therefore the agents had no probable cause to search his house without a warrant. In Document A it gives an example of a court case similar to DLK’s case, Carroll v. United States. In this dispute during the Prohibition Era, federal agents believed Carroll was selling alcohol. The agents spotted Carroll driving on a highway and chased him, when they pulled him over they searched his car, found the alcohol and arrested him. Carroll argued that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights but the Supreme Court ruled the search was lawful because this was considered hot pursuit and Carroll could easily drive away with all of the
...rohibits all unreasonable search and seizures and requires a warrant.”(para. 1). The officers in this case deprived the woman of due process. The lack of a warrant being present upon entering the woman’s home was a clear violation of her constitutional rights as a home owner. “In general, officers can arrest a person (1) for any crime committed in the officer’s presence, (2) for a felony not committed in the officer’s presence if they have probable cause to believe that the person they have arrested committed the felony or, (3) under the authority of a warrant.” (POLICE, 2011, p.183).
When officers arrived at the living area of Johnson and his roommate, Benner Brewer, they did not have a warrant to search Johnson’s area, which violated his 4th amendment rights against a warrantless search.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
A search warrant is obtained by an officer of the law. The officer would apply for a warrant by following the established laws and procedures. I the procedures which are in the first paragraph are not followed correctly, the judge can and will deny the application. In another case the court can invalidate a warrant that they think was issued illegally. In both of these, valuable evidence will be lost and sometimes that can lead to a trial being acquitted. In this case as well the officers
Ohio is a united state that the Supreme Court that there decision concerning evidence to obtained as a part of unlawful arrest. So the story is kind of different from just two guys just standing around and looking at the window more than 24 times. But it had the samething like the police officer taking steps to assure himself that the person has a concealed weapon that can harm self and so he unexpectedly and fatally have been used against the him. Sure it will be like the terry vs. Ohio case and so that lead to an unreasonable search and that can risk the
Unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures should not take place because it violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution by affecting the safety of unfair and unwanted arrest. Unwanted arrest may occur during Seizure of a person, which is when “police conduct talking to them about certain circumstances”, a person being seized is not free to to ignore the police, nor are they allowed to leave at their own will. However, the person being talked to by police, must listen to the police until other arrangements or circumstances are under way. If a police officer “fails to demonstrate exigent circumstances”, then a warrantless arrest will be invalidated. Likewise, a police officer may demonstrate exigent circumstances; If exigent circumstances
Supreme Court made it significantly easier for police to conduct a warrantless search of a home when one of the two occupant’s objects to a police search but the other does not (Richey N.P.). If one of them objects it means they just don’t want them searching or they have something to hide from them. The question in the case, Fernandez V California (12-7822), was whether the girlfriend’s agreement to allow the police to search the apartment overcame Fernandez's fourth amendment right to be free from such police intrusions without a warrant (Richey N.P.). There were 2 occupants and one of them agreed to the search while the other didn’t and they were deciding if the girl’s decision was more important than a man’s fourth amendment right. In the case Fernandez was refusing to let the law enforcers in his door while his girlfriend said it was ok. Fernandez is a suspect already and his girlfriend doesn’t know so she agrees to let them search. The Supreme Court told the law enforcers that they had to honor the decision of Fernandez when he was physically present at the location to be searched. Since Fernandez was physically present, the police had to respect his wishes. The decision significantly narrows a 2006 high court decision in which the justices ruled that police could not search a residence when one of the two occupants objects to such a search (Richey