TITLE & TOPIC United States v. Biswell (1972). United States v. Biswell (1972) is a significant Supreme Court case concerning the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, Biswell, a pawnshop owner with a federal license to sell sporting weapons, was subjected to a warrantless inspection by a Treasury agent. The agent found two sawed-off rifles which Biswell was not authorized to possess, leading to his arrest. Biswell challenged the legality of the search, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights since it was conducted without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, stating that the search was reasonable given the regulatory framework of the firearms industry. …show more content…
Biswell (1972) In their decision in United States v. Biswell, the Supreme Court justices provided several reasons for ruling in favor of the government. They emphasized that warrantless inspections under the Gun Control Act of 1968 are crucial for enforcing federal firearm regulations effectively. These inspections ensure that businesses comply with laws designed to prevent illegal firearm sales and uphold public safety. The Court recognized the unique risks associated with firearms and the need for strict regulatory oversight to mitigate these risks. Additionally, the justices noted that requiring warrants for every inspection could hinder regulatory agencies' ability to promptly address potential violations. They also pointed to legal precedents supporting warrantless inspections in other regulated industries, establishing a consistent approach to regulatory enforcement. While acknowledging Mr. Biswell's Fourth Amendment rights, the Court concluded that the regulatory benefits of warrantless inspections outweighed the minimal intrusion on individual privacy rights in this specific regulatory context. DISENTING OPINION United States v. Biswell (1972) In the case of United States v. Biswell, there were no dissenting opinions. The Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision, ruling in favor of the United States government's position that warrantless inspections under the Gun Control Act of 1968 are constitutional. Therefore, all justices agreed with the rationale provided for upholding the legality of warrantless inspections as necessary for regulatory enforcement and public safety in the context of firearm sales and regulation. IMPACT OF CASE United States v. Biswell
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
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
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
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
At the time of trial, Mr. Wardlow tried to suppress the handgun as evidence due to the fact that he believed the gun had been seized under an unlawful stop and frisk that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a showing of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches. “In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to ‘specific reasonable inferences’ why the stop was necessary.”(Oyez, 2000) Recognizing that an investigati...
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.
The amendment involved in this case was the Fourth Amendment due to the protection of unreasonable search
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
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 is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.
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. This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor of the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technologic invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
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 amendment that raises my own eye is the Search and Seizures Clause of the Fourth Amendment. Like most of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment has its origins in 17th and 18th century, English common law. Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment's origins can be traced precisely it arose out of a strong public reaction to three cases from the 1760s, two decided in England and one in the colonies. Two cases from England, “Entick vs. Carrington” and “Wilkes vs. Wood”, involved plaintiffs who produced pamphlets criticizing the government. During the arresting, officials seized books and papers from the plaintiff’s property. A court agreed that the officers’ actions constituted trespassing. The third case occurred within the colonies and involved “writs of assistance,” which permitted officials to search for smuggled goods without specify which house or what goods.
In combination, these safeguards provide formidable protection of Fourth Amendment rights. Soon thereafter, however, the Court began to loosen the restriction it had put in place. In Brinegar v. United States, the Court held that police officers do not need to always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search. The Court reasoned that “[b]ecause many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part.”