480 US Ortega Case Study

361 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: 4th amendment and law enforcement

O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987) Floramae Patry Saint Leo University Legal Issue in Criminal Justice Administration CRJ 550 Dr. Jeff Golden September 26, 2015 O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987) Title and citation: O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987) Type of action: This is a civil suit case alleging that the search and seizure of Dr.Ortegas office violated his Fourth Amendment right. Fact of the case: In 1981, officials at a hospital, including executive director Dr. Dennis O’Connor, suspected improprieties in Dr.ortegas management of a residency program. The official conducted an investigation of Dr.Ortega, which included multiple searches of his office and seizure of a number of items. The items were later used in proceedings before the California state personnel board to impeach the credibility of witnesses that testified for on Dr.Ortegas behalf. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. Issue: Did the supervisor’s search and seizure of the office violated Dr. Ortega's reasonable expectation of privacy guaranteed by the fourth amendment? Contention: Decisions: …show more content…

Also the search was not a violation because any property in a state building doesn’t need to be secured. The courts believed the actuality of the working environment have certain beliefs of privacy between public employee whenever a supervisor makes an unreasonable search rather than law enforcement. The court also did not think it was important for a business or company to get a warrant to search any part of their building, especially when it’s dealing with routine checks. However, there are restraints for government employees, along with supervisor when it comes to searches and seizures. Additionally, employees do have some privacy in the workplace. The court thus held that an intrusion by public

Show More
Related

  • Morale Vs Grigel Case Study

    248 Words  | 1 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Joseph P. Reilly

    1195 Words  | 3 Pages

    Joseph P. Reilly filed a complaint against Gwynne G. Zisko, Esq., on or about April 8, 2016. Reilly asserts that Zisko violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by serving a subpoena on his employer, the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department. The details of the case relating to the subpoena will be discussed further on in this report. Within the complaint, Reilly alleges that Zisko has violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 3.4, as well as 4.4.

    Read More

  • Pembaur V City Of Cincinnati Case Study

    1297 Words  | 3 Pages

    Facts: According to the case Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), an Ohio physician was being investigated for fraud. During the course of the investigation, it was necessary to interview two employees from his practice. Since the employees did not respond to a subpoena, a warrant was issued and the Sheriffs were sent out to the physician’s office where the employees also worked. Upon arrival, the Sheriffs were not allowed to enter the area where the two employees

    Read More

  • Legal Issues in Healhthcare

    933 Words  | 2 Pages

    While working at the OB-GYN department in the hospital, Dr. Vandall, as a Vice Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, learned that another employee of the hospital, Dr. Margaret Nordell was engaged in a level of treatment that was unethical and violated accepted standards of care. It was his duty to the hospital and to the patients, to monitor the competence of his staff members. Although he tried to take the proper steps to deal with it within the hospital, he ended up reporting this to the North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners. It was concluded by the Board that the treatment of Dr. Nordell was gross negligence and they suspended her license to practice medicine.

    Read More

  • Arizona V. Hicks Summary

    695 Words  | 2 Pages

    The search is not considered legal, and not covered under the plain site doctrine. Myer’s fourth amendment protection against illegal search and seizure was violated by testing the bloody

    Read More

  • Mapp v. Ohio

    569 Words  | 2 Pages

    Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.

    Read More

  • Justice Harlan's Reasonable Expectation Test In Katz Vs. United States

    1009 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Robert Taliento Case Study

    711 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence disputing that the Government was negligent in disclosing a purported promise of leniency made to Robert Taliento, their key witness in exchange for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney, DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant (Golden) who tried the case was unaware of the promise. The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on the grounds that this non-disclosure was a violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Read More

  • Vernonia School District V. Acton (1996)

    1761 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... 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.

    Read More

  • New Jersey Vs. T.L.O.

    311 Words  | 1 Pages

    Decision : Reasonable standard held to be proper standard for determining       legality of searches conducted by public school officials.

    Read More

  • Vernonia School District V. Acton

    1088 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Read More

  • Parson Case Study

    860 Words  | 2 Pages

    Registered Nurse Pausits, a defendant out of the many involved with Parson’s case, has failed to provide Randy Parson with the correct prescription drug during his stay at Standish. The Plaintiff wanted to prove that she unsuccessfully administered medication to Randy Parsons and that a reasonable jury can conclude the fact Pausits was aware of the risks to Parsons. The court has reversed the grant of summary judgment to Nurse Pausits, because this case would rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff Parsons revealed that Pausits perceived facts to infer substantial risk to Randy Parsons and drew the inference. She had to state she was aware, which she did, of a substantial risk. Evidence has shown that Nurse Pausits could have gotten Dilantian for Randy Parson if she viewed the situation as an emergency. Pausit’s case has discovered confirmation that she administered 100mg of Dilantin to Randy Parsons August 27, at 6:00 p.m. However, in Randy’s toxicology report, no Dilantin was shown in his body for 3 days before his death, which was August 28. Wellbutrin was shown in Randy’s body instead of Dilantin, which is a form of an anti-depressant that helps people suffering from seizures and can prevent causing a seizure. Displayed that Pausits signed Randy’s Medication Administration Record (MAR), when the prison log showed that Registered Nurse Alexander performed the medication August 27, raises a red flag as to who performed the medication and what prescription was given. The Plaintiff provided enough evidence towards Pausits in that she has unsuccessfully administered the medication to Randy and that Pausits was aware of a substantial risk to Randy Parsons. Because of this, a jury can place more significance on the t...

    Read More

  • Fourth Amendment Exceptions

    2959 Words  | 6 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Appellant V. Pper Case Summary

    251 Words  | 1 Pages

    Appellant argued that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the consenting party did not have authority to do so. R. 8-11. The Judge issued an order denying the motion, ruling that although the third party’s authority was ambiguous, the search was reasonable under the court’s adoption of the Seventh Circuit’s approach to ambiguous authority. R. 21,22.

    Read More

  • Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy Essay

    2109 Words  | 5 Pages

    The children had incurred numerous needles and painful hospital admissions, investigations, and procedures because of a false story and factitious signs...the falsification was not by the patient themselves but by another person "acting on their behalf" which is a proxy (502).

    Read More

More about 480 US Ortega Case Study

Open Document