The Fourth Amendment states, "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." (Cornell). On January 17, 2014, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear two cases that deal with the 4th Amendment, Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. Both of the cases concern whether or not an arrest is lawful if the evidence is gained by a searching of the cell phone, before the arrest. Each case is significant and involves the Fourth Amendment. David Leon Riley was the appellant in the Riley v. California case. Riley was in a gang in San Diego, California. "He was involved in an August 2, 2009 shooting of a rival gang member. On August 22, 2009, Riley was stopped by police while driving another car for expired registration tags. Police decided to impound the vehicle and found loaded guns during a standard inventory check. Riley was arrested and his cell phone was searched incident to arrest. Police discovered information related to Riley's membership in gangs and of other gang members." (Electronic Privacy Information Center). The court went on to find David Riley guilty and that the search of his cell phone was lawful under the case People v. Diaz. The litigants in the case were the people and sheriff as the plaintiff and David Leon Riley as the defendant. Brima Wurie was the appellant in the United States v. Wurie case. Brima Wurie was arrested in 2007 for the distribution of crack cocaine. He was taken to jail and his cell phone... ... middle of paper ... ...nce. I think that goes completely against the 4th Amendment. I believe that it was an invasion of privacy and the evidence found through the cell phones should not have been allowed in court. "Many people have no idea how much data their cell phones collect about them. Phones, for example, report back to the carriers as to where the users are at any given time -- in some cases even when the phone is not in use. When you carry a cell phone, you are ''essentially carrying a tracking device,'' says Jennifer Granick, the civil liberties director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation." (New York Times). I think that the government is deciding that they will do as they please and that people need to be more careful about what they have on their cell phones. In conclusion, I think that the civil liberties of both defendants were broken and they were wrongfully imprisoned.
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
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 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.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen. It asserts that an individual can verbally waive their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures so long as this waiver is not coerced by a government official. The Court goes on to decide that it is not required for suspects to demonstrate knowledge of these rights before waiving them. The blow to liberty interest is put most elegantly in Justice Marshall's dissent when he writes, "I have difficulty in comprehending how a decision made without knowledge of available alternatives can be treated as a choice at all." This precedent that a citizen may make a decision to waive their rights without knowing of the alternative, in this case maintaining the Fourth Amendment's protections, is perfectly legitimate is dangerous for liberty interests in a world where order-seeking policemen seek to take advantage of uninformed citizens. It is a terrible matter of policy. The logic in reaching this conclusion is no better. It is an argument fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
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 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 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.
The 4th amendment of The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Henry David Thoreau once said, “That government is best which governs least," this statement is true because the more the government is involved, the more complicated life becomes for the people of the U.S. When government is too involved in something, it can soon becomes corrupt. The Safford Unified School District v. Redding was a case in 2009 where thirteen year old Savanna was suspected to have given prescription-strength ibuprofen to a friend in school, this resulted in the vice principal taking her backpack and searching for more pills. Nothing was found in Savanna’s backpack so she was sent by the vice principal to the nurse’s office to be stripped of all her clothes including her undergarments; again nothing was found. In this instance the school became overly involved for non-justifiable reasons which caused the situation to become corrupt. This is comparable to when the government and law enforcement is too involved in the citizen’s lives. It is of unjust law to search the American people without probable cause. The school strip searched Savanna illegally which
...e Court would also fine Mr. Dickerson guilty of contraband. However, after reading the ruling, I understand how easily and differently the Fourth Amendment may be understood and withheld. Another good point was proven in the “Mapp vs. Ohio” case where law enforcement did indeed violate the Fourth Amendment. Interpretation of this amendment was apparent back in the 1760’s where they had cases based on the freedom of citizens. The Fourth Amendment is a very creative amendment that gives the people the right of freedom and to protect their own properties. As a future law enforcement officer, I chose this amendment to gather information on the proper procedures to obtain a search warrant and understand how improperly obtaining a search warrant may change an outcome of a case. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment may be perceived differently in a court of law.
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
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.
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.
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.