Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fourth amendment analysis
Fourth amendment analysis
The 4th amendment explained
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fourth amendment analysis
Precedents in the Fernandez V. California
As per the fourth amendment, it is clear that unwarranted search and seizure of individuals and persons get misplaced at law. However, under this amendment, there are provisions that the police acting on voluntary consent from a dweller with an equal authority is possible. However, there are law lapses when it comes to the case Georgia v. Randolph. The Supreme Court if by any chance got an objection from one of the continents on the request by the police to search the apartment the police were wrong in turning to the other continent. This ruling was distinct from other precedents of United States V.Matlock. In Matlock, the decision by Supreme Court held that given the defendant was not available at
…show more content…
California. The organization is a non-profit making organization whose members have vast knowledge in criminal law. The organization was in support of the petitioner against the California state. They were concerned with material facts on the ground with reference to the fourth amendment. They sought to know whether the police had taken prior measures while applying this law during the arrest of Walter Fernandez, who got suspected of robbery. The submission by the organization charged the ruling of the case given that it argued some of the facts correctly precisely. It got found that the case was more of a state trying to infringe a person 's right. It was in bad faith given that the state respects the rule of law. The police intention was to seek consent, where seen as malice given that one party had not approved. The Law enforcers got a warrant but, neglected hence the court was not acting in favor of a criminal but a person whose rights had gotten substantially infringed. During the submission by the amicus curiae it was evident that the police might not have put much interest in arresting the suspect given they did not follow due procedures. However had the suspect been arrested near his premises the case would take another
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?
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
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.)).
... decision also brings suspiscion about whether or not if things go south is he going to take any accountability. In conclusion, this case truly represents the use of unauthorized practice of law.
The police officer ignored asking of an investigation of the discrepancy between the complaint's claim and the result of the medical exam. Moreover, the police wrongly concluded. the event and not allow appeal this acting in self-defence.
they were right. There is no hearing for the victim, and if they are innocent,
From time to time, technology has changed the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. Those new tools has made constitutional questions to arise. “The Fourth Amendment says that you have an expectation of privacy in your home and person.” This amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. In the case of DLK versus the United States, DLK felt his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement took thermal images of his home to detect heat without a warrant. Based on this information, law enforcement was able to obtain a warrant and upon finding marijuana growing in his home, he was arrested.
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.
If the defendant did not take matters in to their own hands the outcome could have been different.
On the night in question Mr. Blake was a guest of Mr. Smith expected the right to claim the Fourth Amendment’s right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment). This right was violated in many ways through the following; the police officers watching
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.
The primary role of particular criminal justice agencies in the criminal court system is to make an appropriate, objective and determine decision while fulfilling their duties. For example, judges are able to interpret and apply law on particular circumstances; and police collect evidence and investigate crime through proper and legal ways, as they are all restrict to the legal regulation and bureaucratic administration (Findlay, Odgers, & Yeo, 2009, p. 21). To maintain the interests of defendants as well as public interest by avoiding innocent individual to a miscarriage of justice and giving a prompt and certain punishment to guilty individual, it is very important that each criminal justice agencies can fulfill their duties in a lawful manner, especially the legal representative. A legal representative is an individual representing defendant in court to defense and make decision for them, which means the legal representative is the only one stays at the same side as the defendant and cares the interests of the defendant. Therefore, in this report we will examine to what extent is the role of legal representation important in Local Court and Supreme Court.
...existing law and if the decision violated federally protect rights. The third is determining if probable caused existed under search and seizure and had reason to believe that she/he was following due process as interpreted as good faith (pp. 403-404).
...articles which they reasonably believed to be material evidence in relation to the crime for which they had arrested that person.