Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hotel safety and security esssay
Fourth amendment analysis
Fourth amendment analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Facts: A number of cases of liquor and a tool and die set were stolen from the bar and storeroom located in the Colony Arms Hotel in Glen Cove. Mr. Lerhinan was staying at a local motel and was several weeks late in payment. According to Chapter 10 in our textbook Hotel Restaurant and Travel Law, “guests rights to exclusive use of the room ends if the guest fails to pay as agreed or if the occupancy period expires” (Cournoyer, 368). The hotel manager entered Mr. Lerhinan’s room with the purpose of collection. When Mr. Lerhinan was found not to be in his motel room the manager decided to move all of his belongings to the basement and re-rent the room. The Chapter 10 states that, “the right to occupy the room reverts from the guest to the innkeeper, who is then entitled to enter the room, prepare it for the next visitor, and remove any remaining property of the guest” (Cournoyer, 368). While collecting Mr. Lerhinan’s belongings he came across the stolen liquor in the defendant’s closets; he immediately called the police. The defendant was arrested the next day and charged with the theft of the stolen items. Mr. Lerhinan moved to suppress the evidence found in the motel room, due to the fact that he claimed that the motel manager violated his fourth amendment to privacy by entering his motel room. …show more content…
Holding: It is concluded that a hotel guest, who has a constitutionally protected right to privacy in his room, loses any reasonable expectation of such privacy when the rental period expires. At that time, the hotel owner may reassert control of the room and validly consent to have the police search it and its content; thus Mr. Lerhinan’s challenge to the search must be
When officers arrived at the living area of Johnson and his roommate, Benner Brewer, they did not have a warrant to search Johnson’s area, which violated his 4th amendment rights against a warrantless search.
In the case Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp 988 (1976), the plaintiff James Morale, who is a student at New Hampshire Technical Institute, room was entered and searched by officials representing the dorm. There was no probable cause for them to enter his room, and while there they seized what they alleged to be “purple haze”. The court ruled that a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless NHTI can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution. The search must further an interest that is separate and distinct from that served by New Hampshire's criminal law. Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's
Wife appealed from the judgement of Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County, N.Y., Morrie Slifkin, J modifying a judgment of divorce by awarding custody of the parties’ children to the husband.
Said by Justice David Souter “ In the majority opinion, compared the reasonableness of such a search to a more casual interaction.” He believes that the co-occupants consent is not valid because their was the refusal of an other occupant. Beside on the Fourth Amendment it states that “ a valid warrantless entry and search of a premises when the police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, common authority over the property, and no present co-tenant objects.”
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
Procunier case is whether the California Department of Corrections’ restriction on media-inmate interviews is constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the California Department of Corrections ban was constitutional and did not violate the inmates’ rights of free speech. Furthermore, the regulation did not violate the media’s right to access information within a correctional
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
The Court sets up their argument by listing two competing concerns which must be accommodated in defining a voluntary consent. They are the legitimate need for such searches and the requirement of assuring the absence of coercion. The Court digresses from the case at hand with the first concern. The facts of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte indicate that the suspects were stopped for the violation of having lights burned out on their automobile. Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for...
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.
Appellant was arrested on suspicion of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. R. 4,5. A grand jury indictment was granted for possession of DHTC, with intent to distribute. R. 3. Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence based on the unreasonableness of the detective’s search of Appellant’s home. R. 8-11.
The plaintiff in Mitchell activated the store’s antishoplifting device alarm while exiting the store. Id. at 632. The store security guard detained her by taking her shopping bag and investigating the items inside of the bag. Id. In Colonial Stores the court held that the store did not detain the plaintiff in a reasonable time because the store did not conduct an investigation while the plaintiff was being detained. Colonial Stores, Inc. v Fishel, 288 S.E.2d 21, 23 (Ga. App. 1981). The store manager and security guard in Colonial Stores detained the plaintiff without investigating further to see if the plaintiff was guilty of shoplifting. Id. The court stated that the purpose of detaining someone suspected of shoplifting was to investigate. Id. The store’s failure to investigate makes them liable for false imprisonment according to the court in Colonial Stores.
Statement: Benjamin M. Harrington Statement of the incident that happen on April 11, 2016 with my co-worker Pramond Patel.
The mother indicated that she continued to stay in the relationship. She reported in 1993, Mr. Solestin hit her, they were having an argument and she told him she wanted to move out. The mother reported after she stated that she wanted out of the relationship, he became violent. Ms. Choi stated that he picked her up and threw her on the “bed or floor”, she was very frightened. The mother reported that she would hide in the bathroom and he would smash the door to get at her. She indicated that he can’t be in a situation where she is not obedient to him.
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
The fight for privacy rights are by no means a recent conflict. In fact, there was conflict even back in the days before the revolutionary war. One of the most well-known cases took place in England, ...