Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The 4th Amendment
A court case dealing with the fourth amendment
The 4th Amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The 4th Amendment
Often, law enforcement officers in Wisconsin, and elsewhere, use drug-sniffing dogs to help locate illicit substances. When these K9 officers are brought onto private property, however, it raises questions about legal searches and seizures. Based on a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, using drug dogs on private property without a warrant is considered an unlawful search.
According to the U.S. Courts, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people from searches and seizures by government officials without reasonable cause. This generally includes searching a person’s home. The exceptions to this rule include situations when the property owner gives his or her consent, there are exigent circumstances or there is probable cause, the search is related to a lawful arrest or there are items in plain
…show more content…
sight. In the past, law enforcement officers would sometimes bring a drug-sniffing dog with them to a suspect’s door.
If the dog then indicated that there were drugs inside, they would use that hit as probable cause to allow a search. Recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that authorities must have a search warrant before bringing drug dogs onto private property to look for illegal drugs, including marijuana, and other hidden items. As such, authorities cannot take a dog to a person’s property without a warrant and then use any alerts from the K9 officer as probable cause or evidence to obtain a search warrant.
The ruling came out of a case involving the search of a suspect’s Florida home. A drug-sniffing dog was taken to the property and, through a closed front door, detected marijuana inside the home. Based on that alert, the authorities obtained a warrant to search the residence. The home’s occupant was taken into custody and charged with drug trafficking after a large number of marijuana plants were found inside. The evidence obtained through the search was ultimately thrown out as a result of the Supreme Court’s
ruling. When law enforcement officers do not follow proper protocols to legally uncover evidence, it may result in wrongful convictions. As such, those facing drug charges may benefit from obtaining legal representation. An attorney may help them establish a strong defense, which may include questioning whether a search and seizure was lawfully conducted.
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.
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.
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.
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 warranted search is per say reasonable. Officers may then employ various reasonable means of obtaining the information, e.g. search the content of U.S. mail, one’s house or office, or deploy an undercover agent as in Lewis v. United States (1966). They may, without need for physical intrusion as under the archaic trespass doctrine, utilize modern surveillance methods, such as electronic eavesdropping as in Lopez v. United States (1963) or heat signatures. (Solove and Schwartz 83) Under the third party doctrine, officers may obtain information that you voluntarily provide to your bank, accountant, ISP or e-mail provider as per United States v. Forrester (2008). (Ibid 197; 199) Conversely, “a warrantless search is generally considered to be per se unreasonable.” (Ibid 99) As noted in Katz v. United States (1967), “‘the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’ and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable…” (Ibid 99) Fail to meet any of the four elements and the warrant does not meet constitutional muster (see Berger v. New York (1967) wherein officers failed to stop surveillance at
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 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
Almost every state and there cities have a K-9 unit. But if you're like me, your not to sure what they exactly are and how they work. Well there are many different kinds of K9 units, like patrol dogs, narcotic dogs, arson detection dogs, and explosive detection dogs. Plus K-9 units have two helpful new technology pieces to help then protect there canine partners.
One of the Legal Rights the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects is: The right to be free of imprisonment, search, and seizure without reasons backed by the law. “In a undisclosed school in Canada, there was a sudden police checking, in which police dogs roamed around the hallway of the school to see if there was any suspicious substance or object. During the checking, the police fo...
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.
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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
The “War on Cocaine” has been trying to fight a battle on two fronts. The first objective of the American government is to deter the consumer from using illegal products. The genesis of punishment against users is sited in the 1914 Harrison Act, in which addicts and others that possessed drugs were punished for buying or possessing cocaine or heroin without a prescription (Bertram, 26). This act began a trend that still today allows law enforcement to arrest the user along with the supplier. The supplier (drug trafficker) is the key in this type of police action, because most of the time the user will be unaware of the exact origin of the substance or have any knowledge as to where it was purchased or manufactured. The main problem with this type of arrest is that 70 to 75 percent of the narcotic arrests per year are for possession and only 25 to 30 percent are for actual drug trafficking offenses. Although the user should not be overlooked, a greater emphasis ought to be focused on the supplier in order to reach the actual manufacturer of the illegal substances.