Facts: Mr. Johnathan Blake was a guest at Jessie Smiths home at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015. While inside the residents were watching the Super bowl when police officers responded to a disturbance call, during the disturbance call police officers allegedly observed Mr. Blake smoking marijuana through a large window in the living room and passing unknown substance to someone. Mr. Smith the owner of the home allowed the police to enter the premises upon which the officers informed them that they had witnessed the smoking of marijuana and distribution of a white substance and allegedly discovered firearms under the couch. Police conducted pat-down search of Mr. Blake finding large amount of suspected marijuana, suspected cocaine, and money ($400). Mr. Blake was then charged with possession of a controlled substance, distribution of a controlled substance, and possession of an unregistered firearm. Issue: 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 …show more content…
In this case I would conclude that Mr. Blake was a regular visitor to the residence of Mr. Smith as he was part-owner to their business. Due to this even on a temporary visit he maintains his fourth amendment rights upon entering the property. All the evidence gathered on Mr. Blake’s person then would be inadmissible due to reasonable expectation of privacy, as well as the exclusionary rule. Mr. Blake also could not be charged in possession of a firearm since he did not have one on his person and there was no evidence that any of the firearms belonged to
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 the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
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...
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.
The 4th Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
Harris" while the defendant Harris refuse permission to search his car, the sniff dog alerted the officer in charge about the controlled substance in the car handle which stands for a probable cause (Constitution Daily, Folrida v. Harris). With the above three case in mind, one can conclude that the IV Amendment is as easy to violate as easily as it protects the citizen. Sniff dogs are one of many other cases that has contributed to the questioning the IV Amendment along with racial profiling. Another major issue that has kept the controversy of 'unreasonable search and seizure ' is the use of GPS Surveillance on a suspect vehicle. 'United States v. Jones ' the case where judge ruled the evidence obtained were by usurping Jones, hence not acceptable in the court. Jones was arrested by the use of GPS to track his activity for a month, without judicial approval (Body Politic, United States v. Jones). Since the fourth amendment provides protection for search and trespass, the method was direct violation of the constitutional right and Jones was set free from all the charges. Although Jones was found in possession of drugs and should be behind bars, officials should have followed proper protocol to rightfully arrest him. People like Jones should be punished, but being protected by the constitution the proper procedure must be
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 Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that individuals have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and impacts, against absurd searches and seizures, yet the issue close by here is whether this additionally applies to the ventures of open fields and of articles in plain view and whether the fourth correction gives insurance over these also. With a specific end goal to reaffirm the courts' choice on this matter I will be relating their choices in the instances of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which bargain straightforwardly with the inquiry of whether an individual can have sensible desires of protection as accommodated in the fourth correction concerning questions in an open field or in plain view.
As it was found out later, the arrest was the result of the false report provided by the man who claimed that Lawrence possessed weapons at his home. The report was filed by the neighbor Roger David Nance (41 years old) and he has already been accused before for the similar complaints. The above cause to enter the house, however, was not considered to be the issue in the case hearing and Nance admitted that he provided false report.
In this scenario, the Agents seized cocaine, a Lamborghini, and weapons found at John Doe's ranch.... ... middle of paper ... ... The weapons found at the ranch are admissible due to the fact the agents had a warrant to search the ranch for drugs and weapons.
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.
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.
In 1787, the Constitution, created by a group of men known as the “Framers”, is the highest law in the United States. At first, the Constitution was not ratify because it did not have a bill of rights which is a list of rights that belong to the people. Therefore to allow changes to the Constitution, the Framers created the amendment process. In 1791, congress proposed twelve changes to the Constitution. Ten of the twelve changes were agreed to by the states and were called “The Bill of Rights.” Some of these rights include the right of free speech, the right to practice your own religion and the right to be silent if you are arrested.
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