The issue in this case was on whether or not the police officials had probable cause to search the container in the individual’s car, and if they acted in the correct way when searching it. The court needed to identify if it was necessary for the officers to search the bag at the moment that it was found. The officers were unable to detect the marijuana when the trunk was first opened because it was in the brown bag. In that case, it could be considered the searching of someone’s luggage. A person’s luggage is considered to be more personal than their car because it is hidden from the public. A case brief states, “Does the 4th Amendment require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to search a container or package in a car when there
Racial profiling is the tactic of stopping someone because of the color of his or her skin and a fleeting suspicion that the person is engaging in criminal behavior (Meeks, p. 4-5). This practice can be conducted with routine traffic stops, or can be completely random based on the car that is driven, the number of people in the car and the race of the driver and passengers. The practice of racial profiling may seem more prevalent in today’s society, but in reality has been a part of American culture since the days of slavery. According to Tracey Maclin, a professor at the Boston University School of Law, racial profiling is an old concept. The historical roots “can be traced to a time in early American society when court officials permitted constables and ordinary citizens the right to ‘take up’ all black persons seen ‘gadding abroad’ without their master’s permission” (Meeks, p. 5). Although slavery is long since gone, the frequency in which racial profiling takes place remains the same. However, because of our advanced electronic media, this issue has been brought to the American public’s attention.
The Supreme Court here articulates that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband yet no other private fact compromises no privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. This appears to be settled law, even though Justice Blackmun would argue that it is merely dictum, and that the majority should not have passed an opinion on their validity under these facts “” (quoting from United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)).
For the past few years there has been an ongoing debate surrounding the issue of racial profiling. The act of racial profiling may rest on the assumption that African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes than any individual of other races or ethnicities. Both David Cole in the article "The Color of Justice" and William in the article "Road Rage" take stance on this issue and argue against it in order to make humanity aware of how erroneous it is to judge people without evidence. Although Cole and William were very successful in matters of showing situations and qualitative information about racial profiling in their articles, both of them fail at some points.
The Fourth Amendment was passed in 1789 and later ratified in December 15, 1971. The Fourth Amendment offers protection and prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. When, how, and why these searches have taken place is protected under this law. An officer of the law would need a warrant to perform the search and has to have probable cause in order to search a person and their property. The Fourth Amendment is implicated in a search when someone is pulled over by the cops, when being placed under arrest, when officers enter the
In the case cited, police suspected Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home. They used a thermal imaging device from across the street to scan Kyllo's home to see if the level of heat escaping from it was consistent with high-intensity lights used to grow marijuana indoors. The result of the scan showed that portions of Kyllo's home were relatively hot compared to the rest of his home. Using the result of the scan, as well as other information, police obtained a warrant to search Kyllo's home, and found a marijuana-growing operation in their search.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees an individual’s protection against unlawful searches and seizures by law enforcement by providing that a search warrant with specific detailing information, based on “good faith” and probable cause, must be provided prior to investigation. By doing so, an individual may be secure that “his home is his castle” and his “person, papers, and effects” (The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 4) is protected as well.
Numerous court cases have been held regarding the matters of not only police searching a car but searching your person, the bus or train a person is on and even that persons personal belongings such as a purse, cigarette cases or wallet without a warrant. A warrant is an absolute must to enter into your car home or property. These types of Police Officers Often Misuse and Overuse their powers when it comes to Conducting Searches on Persons or Property cases very often prove that officers may take their power to far and often on purposes (Search Warrants Explained 1...
In 2007 Gregory Diaz was arrested in Ventura County, California, after he sold ecstasy to a police informant. After being detained and brought to the police station, where he was interrogated, Gregory Diaz’s phone was searched by deputy Fazio without a warrant. The phones text messages were found to have incriminating evidence. Upon being confronted with the evidence Mr. Diaz confessed and was charged with transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). The defendant pled guilty but later moved to suppress the evidence and his confession. The defendant’s motion was on the grounds that searching his phone without a warrant violated his constitutional rights, set by the fourth amendment, against unlawful search and seizure. The trial court found the search to be lawful because the object was in his possession upon arrest, therefore subject to search incident to arrest, rejecting his motion.
One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
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.
The Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It is the basis for the establishment of an individual's right to privacy. It does not prohibit searches and seizures. It instead prevents those that would be unreasonable. In order to be lawful, a warrant must be judicially sanctioned. Probable cause must be attested to in the acquisition of a warrant to perform the search and/or seizure. And, the warrant must be limited in scope in accordance with the supporting evidence provided in the attestation. The Fourth Amendment is only applicable to government actors and criminal law.
'' Hands up''! police brutality is a problem in our society because police are getting away with hurting people severely and in some of cases killing them. There are some cops that have been abusing people for along time but, nothing has been done about it. They have been breaking into peoples houses without knocking and raiding them. From 2009 to 2010 there have been 5,986 misconducts reported and 382 misconducts were connected to fatalities. Many times these police repeatedly beat a person after restraining which the leads to death and nothing happens about it.
One exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is a search incident to a lawful arrest. A search incident to lawful arrest requires a valid arrest as a foundation for conducting a search following an arrest (Ingram, 2009). In this particular type of arrest, a police officer will first begin the process by obtaining full control over an individual. Once the officer obtains full control over the individual he or she will then determine where, when, and how the person will either move from or stay in a particular area (Ingram, 2009). The next move is for the officer, after detaining the individual in question, is to then search the individual to find incriminating evidence. It is important to note that this type of search is actually permitted under the law.
As per the fourth amendment, it is clear that unwarranted search and seizure of individuals and persons get misplaced at law. However, under this amendment, there are provisions that the police acting on voluntary consent from a dweller with an equal authority is possible.
The Fourth Amendment Reasonably states probable cause, which is a higher standard than the suspicion standard that applies to all non-intrusive searches.