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.
“‘Racial Profiling’ refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.” (ACLU). Racial Profiling is a common occurrence in our culture. Most people don’t even realize that they are racial profiling because frequently in our society, people use race as grounds for assuming someone committed an offense. A study conducted at Northeastern university found that, “… 74.7 percent of speeders were White, while 17.5 percent were Black. In contrast, according to MSP data, Blacks constituted 79.2 percent of the drivers searched…” (Ramirez, McDevitt, & Farrell, n.d.). The high levels of disproportion in Black speeders to car searches shows how frequently racial profiling happens in our day to day lives.Trayvon Martin was a victim of racial profiling and neither supporters of Martin nor Zimmerman could deny that. In fact, Democrats saw such blatant racial profiling that their Racial Profiling Bill got another chance of being passed. John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan said, “Though the death of Trayvon Martin was not the result of a law enforcement encounter, the issues of race and reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct are so closely linked in the minds of the public that his death cannot be separated from the law enforcement profiling debate…” (Fox).
As police officers continue their hunt to remove criminals off the street, search and seizure has been an ongoing pursuit. The Fourth Amendment protects our right against an unreasonable search. Just like citizens, police officers have limit caps on what they can and cannot do. Although they try to get away with coercion, our Fourth Amendment plays a crucial role in determining arbitrary and lawful search and seizures. Search and seizure has played an important role in law enforcement over the years and it still continues to shape our criminal justice system.
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.
Does racial profiling exist here in the United States? The answer to that question is yes. First of all what is racial profiling? Racial profiling is an illegal method the police you to top a person or person on the bases of their race. Racial profiling happen to blacks and Hispanics more then it does to the Caucasians.
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...
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
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.
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.
'' 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.
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)).
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.
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
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.
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.