Assignment Sub-Heading: Fourth Amendment Rights to search and seizure. TITLE AND CITATION: United States of America v. Raymond J. Place 462 U.S. 696 (1983) TYPE OF ACTION: This is a criminal case Facts of the case: Defendant Raymond J. Place was at Miami International Airport purchasing an airline ticket to New York La Guardia airport. The Miami DEA Agent was alerted due to Place unusual behavior and the different addresses on his luggage tag, DEA felt like Place was trafficking Narcotics. They approached Place and asked for his identification and to search his two luggage and he comply. However, Place plane was departing, so the DEA agent decided to allow Place to catch his place and not search his luggages. But Miami DEA call the New York DEA agent and informed them of their belief that place might have narcotics in his luggage. When Place plane landed in New York, the DEA agent approached Place, asked to searched his luggage and this time Place refused, the DEA take …show more content…
The Supreme Court here articulates that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband yet no other private fact compromises no privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. This appears to be settled law, even though Justice Blackmun would argue that it is merely dictum, and that the majority should not have passed an opinion on their validity under these facts “” (quoting from United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)). Reasoning: Terry Stop allow Law Enforcement officers to temporarily detain a person luggage to investigate the circumstances under reasonable suspicion that the traveler is trafficking narcotics. More so, the time limit must be appropriate to the detention. However, keeping the luggage for three days exceeded the time allowed under Terry Stop, which was a violation of the Fourth
Facts: On July 29,2003 Detective Jason Leavitt was doing his usually undercover work, dressed in all black with twenty on dollar bill hanging out his pocket. Leavitt was then approached by the Miller (defendant) asking him for money. The detective refused to give him the money, in return the appellant put his arm around the detective’s neck taking the cash out of his front pocket. The arrest time the pulled up and took Miller into custody and charged him with larceny. Miller was convicted, and sentenced by the district courts to spend up to thirty two months, but no less than 12 months in jail.
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf (last visited Apr.4, 2014).
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
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
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.
Meyer v. State of Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 Sct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042. (1923)
Thus, though the police initial intent was in violation of traffic rules, questions had to arise when they apprehended Whren and Brown on other drug-related charges an otherwise violation of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment would prohibit against unreasonable seizure unless the police were motivated by the need to enforce the law. Indeed, the court still had to try and prove whether the police conduct deviated from the standard police practices. Lastly, it was left to the court to show whether the police had the right to arrest the two men on drug-related charges rather than the traffic violation (Whren v United States,
Elijah manuel was sitting in the passenger seat of a car when he gets pulled over. The officer smelt marijuana, so he dragged him out of the car and patted him down. He found a bottle of pills, tested it, and falsified the results to show the pills were ecstasy. They were later tested again and proven not to be ecstasy. Charges were then dropped and Manuel sues the city of joliet and the city police officers. His malicious prosecution claim was dismissed under Newsome v. McCabe which held that that federal claims of malicious prosecution steam from the right to due process and are not a Fourth Amendment issue. So the question presented to the court was whether or not an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search
...e Court would also fine Mr. Dickerson guilty of contraband. However, after reading the ruling, I understand how easily and differently the Fourth Amendment may be understood and withheld. Another good point was proven in the “Mapp vs. Ohio” case where law enforcement did indeed violate the Fourth Amendment. Interpretation of this amendment was apparent back in the 1760’s where they had cases based on the freedom of citizens. The Fourth Amendment is a very creative amendment that gives the people the right of freedom and to protect their own properties. As a future law enforcement officer, I chose this amendment to gather information on the proper procedures to obtain a search warrant and understand how improperly obtaining a search warrant may change an outcome of a case. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment may be perceived differently in a court of law.
Terry which he claimed that his Fourth Amendment which protects all citizens from unreasonable search without a warrant was violated from the moment the officer searched him. Terry appealed the case to the Supreme Court in 1967. The case came also to be known as the “stop and frisk” case. The reason why the name was given is because the officers are only allowed to frisk suspects not search them. The differences between a pat down and a search is that in a pat down, the officer can only pad the individual for hard items they may have inside their pockets. The pat down is mainly to know if the suspect is carrying any weapon that they can use to harm the officer or any other person. Searching a suspect is a little different because that includes a thorough search like checking what is inside a purse or wallet. During a search, an officer could inspect soft things in the pockets of the individual like a small bag of drugs. During a pat down, the officer is not permitted to inspect soft items inside an individual’s pocket. The case collides with the protection that the Fourth Amendment provides us from unreasonable search with no warrant and the prevention of crimes. In 1968, the Supreme Court affirmed that police officers are allowed to pat and frisk individual without probable cause for an arrest. It expands the authority of the police officer to examine crimes before they happen without reasonable basis for suspicious. This decision ensures
Another case that grabbed my attention regarding warrantless searches is Veronia School District v. Acton. This is a U.S. Supreme Court Case in 1995. This case resolved from a school district that adopted a policy authorizing random drug testing of student athletes. In the schools, there was a known drug problem in the school district. Student athletes were the individuals using and considered the drug users
A Terry Stop is an act of the law enforcement officers/ police momentarily detain an individual under reasonable belief of involvement in criminal activity as derived from the case Terry V, Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). The Supreme Court established that law enforcement officers may carry out a restricted search of the suspect’s outer clothes if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual may possess weapons that are dangerous. The bottom-line is to make such stops based on the fact the suspect is involved or is about to commit a crime as opposed to his past conduct/ record (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). Given contrabands, specific legal provisions allow for related seizures during a routine frisking exercise.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
"Romer v. Evans." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437703853.html