United States v Santana (1976)-
Facts about the case: using marked money, police officers made an undercover heroin purchase from a third person. When the money was taken from the officers, the respondent entered “mom Santana’s” house and came out with the heroin. Officers then arrested the respondent and then returned to Santana’s house where they identified themselves as police officers and then went into the house after Santana, she fled into the house from the porch. After obtaining, the officers then told her to empty her pockets. Once doing so they discovered some of the marked money. The search was done without a warrantless. Did the search violate her 4th amendment? (United States v. Santana. (n.d.)).
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. Washington v Chrisman (1982) Facts about the case: In 1978, a Washington police officer stopped a student at Washington State
…show more content…
The decision comes with a number of justices choosing to concur in part and dissent in part, the court said that the searches and seizures of Coolidge’s property were unconstitutional. Justice Stewart’s opinion wrote that the warrant authorized to seize his automobile was not valid because it was not issued by a “nature and detached magistrate.” Stewart also rejected the argument of New Hampshire argument to make an exception to the search warrant with “special circumstances” neither the incident to arrest doctrine nor the plain view doctrine justified the search, and that an automobile exception was also
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
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...
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
Also another fact one of the justices, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the outcome of the case. She said it was called a, “Cursory Inspection” she went on saying the officers could do the search based on reasonable suspicion that the object was evidence of a criminal activity.
Hicks is like the search of Justin Meyers home conducted by police in the fictional case in the text book. In both searches police were in the defendant’s homes and were searching for specific items, and during that search items were found that implicated the defendants in other crimes. There are several differences between the two cases. First, the severity of the crimes. Hicks’s case involved the theft of stereo equipment, while Myers case involved murder. Second, the search of Hicks home did not include a search warrant, and in Meyers case the police did have a search warrant. In Myers case, police had a lawful search warrant to search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. During that search police located a bloody rag, which was sent for testing. The results of this test revealed the blood belonged to a murder victim, implicating Myers for suspicion of murder. Although the police did have a search warrant, the warrant only listed drugs, and paraphernalia. This arises several questions. First where was the bloody rag found? Second, did the police have probable cause that Meyers was under suspicion of murder? Or was it simply a case of reasonable suspicion? In my opinion the results of the tests performed on the bloody rag found in Meyers case should not be admissible since Myers was not under suspicion of murder, and the bloody rag was not included in the lawful search warrant. 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
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...
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
In 1975, the United State Supreme Court held that state law could provide students a property interest in their education, but forty years later and courts remain uncertain of when such an interest exists. In Goss v. Lopez, the United States Supreme Court extended due process protections to a group of high school students in Ohio. The Court determined that Ohio state law provided the high school students a property interest in their continued enrollment at the school, and that such an interest was protected under the due process clause. The Goss decision came during a time when a due process revolution was happening in the United States. During this revolution, the Supreme Court recognized many new property interests in government benefits as the basis
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
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.
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
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
The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action. This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor of 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 technologic 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 differentiation between open fields and private property must be made before one can proceed to form an opinion regarding the constitutionality of a warrantless search of an open field. Oliver v. United States is a case in which police officers, acting on reports from neighbors that a patch of marijuana was being cultivated on the Oliver farm, entered on to private property ignoring “No Trespassing” signs, and on to a secluded open portion of the Oliver property without a warrant, discovered the marijuana patch and then arrested Oliver without an arrest warrant. The Maine Judicial Court held that “No Trespassing” signs posted around the Oliver property “evinced a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and therefore the court held that the “open fields” doctrine was not applicable to the Oliver case.