More handpicked essays just for you.
Search and seizure in schools conclusion
The 4th amendment explained
Search and seizure in schools conclusion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Search and seizure in schools conclusion
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
interest in the maintenance of its plant and the health of its students, as are searches in emergencies, such as in the case of fire; however, intensive searches of rooms for stolen goods serve no legitimate interest of the Institute. Therefore, the search conducted by Grigel (another student) and Lane (Head resident assistant) on Saturday evening, May 24, 1976, was unreasonable, and because it was not conducted pursuant to a properly issued search warrant, the marijuana was illegally seized from Morale's dormitory room. Deary Jones would benefit from this case because his package was unreasonably searched and seized without a warrant. Such as Morale’s room was. There was no probable cause for this warrant and it was in direct violation of his fourth amendment right.
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
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
The question presented to the court is: Does the 4th Amendment protect against the warrantless use of a thermal imaging device which monitors heat emissions from a person’s private residence? As with any case, before any court, it is important to understand all aspects of a case. For example, the facts, procedural history, issues, holding(s), legal reasoning, sources of law, and values are all relevant to predicting a potential outcome as the U.S. Supreme Court sees it.
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 fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
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.
... is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake.” And he concluded that given the mission of public schools, and the circumstances of this case, the searches required by the school board's policy were “reasonable” and thereby permissible under the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
Decision : Reasonable standard held to be proper standard for determining legality of searches conducted by public school officials.
Redding became a starting case against unconstitutional searches of students where a girl had her backpack searched in the assistant principal 's office. After the official searched her bag, the school nurse’s office was her next destination, so the nurse and the administrative assistant could search her clothes and instructed her to shake out the elastic of her bra and underwear (Carpenter 86-87). The tragic part about this case is that it is not the first or final time a similar event has occurred. In the case of Jane Doe, “...or so she was called in this case…”, a student of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas filed a case against her school (Dowling-Sendor 46). Dowling-Sendor tells of how the school regularly conducted searches of book bags and purses, and police officials would take any contraband found. Then any items found would become evidence for a prosecution (46). When school officials searched Jane’s bag, they recovered a container full of Marijuana, and its purpose was to convict Jane Doe on a drug misdemeanor charge. After being charged with this, Jane appealed to the 8th circuit because the District Court first dismissed her case. The court ruled in her favor in a two to one decision, claiming the search caused a violation of her rights. She had every reason to win because school officials search students at this school on a regular basis, and it is
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.
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.
My second weekend here at James Madison University, I was at a party with my friends off campus. Hundreds of kids flocked to the sidewalks near the apartment complexes. All of the upper classmen had given us one vital safety provision, which was to not step onto the street with a cup or beer in hand. I quickly noticed why they had told us this because the streets were swarming with police officers and two feet away on the sidewalks were hundreds of kids drinking right in front of them. During the party, I decided to take a stroll outside for some fresh air and there I saw something that I couldn’t believe. A freshman, perfectly fine, and by this I mean he was not drunk at all, began walking home on the street without a cup or beverage in hand. As soon as his toes touched the pavement two police officers on bikes jumped on him and began interrogating this poor young man. They began questioning him as they looked for any suspicious movements or actions made by the student. After about ten minutes of secret service-like interrogation, they whipped out a breathalyzer test. Clearly, the student failed because he was quickly taken away in hand cuffs in front of hundreds of James Madison students.
The law differs from state to state as the 4th amendment has been modified to meet public school safety. Legislatures decided that there needs to be some modification of the level of suspicion of illegal activity needed to justify a search. They also decided that there's a need for a balanced between the students and the school setting. The 4th amendment has been modified from where you need probable cause and a warrant to...
Motivation and Emotion (pg. 354) both play an important part in our daily life. Motivation helps us understand why we do things a certain way or why our behaviors change unexpectedly. While emotion shows our relationships with others and our health, and making important decisions. Motivation comes from the latin word “movere” which means to move where one starts on activities until one's psychological needs are fulfilled. An example in the chapter is “when a person is relaxed in front of the television and begins to feel hungry, the physical need for food might cause the person to get up, go into the kitchen, and search for something to eat”(Ciccarelli). But, there are two different types of motivation, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. In
Students claim that requiring them to wear mandated uniforms deprives them of their ability to freely express themselves through their choice of dress. However, freedom of expression does consist of the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government, but the first amendment does not grant people the right to act any way they want without actions taken. Numerous schools have a straightforward dress code policy enforced. If these policies are violated, then the students could face consequences for their