In the case of U.S. v Jones, the judicial branch had to address the questionable topic of whether or not the Fourth Amendment was violated (). Since this case was not black and white and did bring up many questions as to what was constitutional, the judges had to use judicial review. Judicial review is the power that allows judges to interpret the meaning of laws (Class, March 13). Once a law is understood a certain way, the people must follow it (Class, __). The U.S. v Jones case deals with the Bill of Rights (United, 1). This is due to the circumstance that the Fourth Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights document stating that “searches and seizures” cannot be done without a warrant (Class,___). The case of U.S. v Jones was about the violation of Jones’s Fourth Amendment when a GPS device was placed on his jeep without his consent because he was suspected of drug possession (United, 1). Since judges have the power to informally amend the Constitution using judicial review (Class, ___), they must take into consideration many contributing elements when making a decision. To be able to understand the ruling of the court, we must first look at what happened before it came to the Supreme Court. First of all, the government did get a search warrant allowing a GPS to be installed on the jeep. However, the GPS must have been installed in D.C. and within the ten-day period that it was issued. The GPS was installed on the 11th in Maryland (Cornell 3-4). He was suspected of having and distributing drugs, so with the help of the GPS, FBI agents were able to find where he hid his supply (Savage 1). The jeep was tracked for a total of 28 days (Cornell 3). This case originally started in the lower court. The U.S. Court o... ... middle of paper ... ... consent to the installation, this action should be considered as a “trespass” (Supreme 7). Dreeben has a weak following statement saying that it could be counted as a “technical trespass” but that would then make U.S. v. Karo a technical trespass (Supreme 7). Here, Dreeben illustrates the “but he did it too” tactic that younger kids use when they are questioned after getting in trouble. Kids say this when they really do not know what to say or how to justify their actions. Dreeben realizes that this would be considered as a trespass which would then mean that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, he tried to revert to the method of putting the blame of someone else because he struggled at justifying an opposing view towards Jones during this time. The court moves on from the trespassing issue to the topic of warrants for the GPS (Supreme 17).
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.
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.
The impact that this case had on the Constitution and Amendments was that of determining if this officer had done a search beyond the demands of the original search, and if he had violated the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments.
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "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.
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
Privacy comes at a cost. It brings people who fight for the people the privacy of others when it is violated together. Cops not being able to search when they seize a cell phone makes them risk their lives because how people these days are, there could be bombs in the phone. Even though this amendment was ratified, people to this day still don’t have privacy they rightfully deserve. This effects me because I’m able to keep special information to myself. Also, if a police pulls over a family member and ask for their phone to investigate without giving a proper reason or having a warrant, that family member could say no. If a police hasn’t given you a good reason to hand something over, you have the right to resist or else the police are being unconstitutional. This amendment gives people the safety to do what they want(that’s legal). It also makes life better, but harder. Life is harder with this amendment because you have to watch out for who you trust that they won’t do anything to jeopardize your safety. This is relevant because a man in Indiana was tracked down by a GPS. It didn’t violate his 4th Amendment because the police got a warrant to put a tracking device in his mom’s car. This case represents how technology gives advantages and disadvantages. An advantage was that they were able to track him down for a burglary. The disadvantage would be that if they hadn’t gotten a warrant, he could have filed a lawsuit against
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found in the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a particular case. The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action.
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.
To keep the law and the integrity of every American citizen intact, it was necessary for the authorities to use the thermal imager to ensure that DLK did not perform any violation of the law and that rules were followed. According to Document E, “The use of the thermal imager in this case was not a Fourth Amendment search…. It did not invade the home or reveal detailed activities…..within the home itself” Looking at the house supported in Document C, absolutely no details of what is happening in the house is shown, and most of the heat is already coming from the outside, meaning that the scanner is not looking into the house, and the heat emitted does not play a role in revealing any information of the suspect’s whereabouts and private information. This shows that the government did not go too far because the police did not invade any privacy of the DLK, and they did what they had to do in order to ensure that no criminal activity was taking place. Looking at different precedent cases, such as Katz vs the United States. In this argument, it was stated that “the Fourth Amendment protect people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a 4th amendment protection.” (-Justice Potter Stewart, Document A). Knowingly, DLK has been exposing increased heat signatures to others in the world, and, because his house is a place, is not protectable under
Indeed, as the Court held in Weeks v. U.S., any evidence that is obtained through violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in federal court, further clarified by the Exclusionary Rule. However, the ruling in Wolf v. Colorado, allowed evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be used in State courts, despite the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court addressed the conflict between the two aforementioned doctrines by overruling the Wolf case altogether. As Justice Clark reasoned "There is no war between the Constitution and common sense". It is illogical to allow a state's prosecutor to use evidence illegally seized, that a federal prosecutor would otherwise not be allowed to use, when both actors are bound by the same Constitution. Moreover, a State's failure to adhere to the principles addressed by the Federal Constitution only influences the practice of disobedience. Furthermore, the rights secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, extend the applicability of the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy to States. Thus, the inadmissibility of evidence in courts, is enforceable to both federal and state
Officers searching incident to arrest, seized Riley’s cell phone uncovering evidence of gang activity and subsequently ties to a gang related shooting. Additionally, Brima Wurie was arrested when officers observed him consummating an apparent drug deal. Officers seized Wurie’s cell phone incident to arrest at which time they observed several missed calls from the same number and wrote down the caller’s number. Subsequently this led to a drug dealers bonanza. Consequently, the main legal issue in the article is whether warrantless law enforcement searching of cell phones incident to arrest violates the Fourth Amendment rights (Harvard,