While there are cases where the court followed the amendment to the letter, there were others where the amendment was not interpreted fully in some aspects. In the Cupp v. Murphy case, “the police noticed a dark spot on the Respondent’s finger. The police thought the spot could have been dried blood and during the questioning asked the Respondent if they could have a sample of what was under his fingernail. He refused. Irrespective of his protests, the police took a sample. It turned out that there were traces of skin, blood and fabric from the deceased’s nightgown in the sample. The evidence was admitted at trial.” (Casebriefs) Cupp had volunteered to be questioned after hearing that his wife had been murdered. During the questioning, he was asked to be searched which he refused but was searched any way. …show more content…
California]. Chimel stands in a long line of cases recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement when a search is incident to a valid arrest. The basis for this exception is that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for a police officer to expect the arrestee to use any weapons he may have and to attempt to destroy any incriminating evidence then in his possession.” (Casebriefs) In this case, Chimel v. California, it was decided that if a police officer had reasonable suspicion that a suspect was suspicion they could arrest and conduct a search. Unlike the situation in this case, the police did not have a warrant for Cupp’s arrest. Nor did they have at that moment any reason to arrest him. Thus, the situation is a bit different than the one previously. While the judges may have caught a murderer, their actions did not respect the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Cupp was seized, violating his protection from unwarranted seizures. This case was not a correct interpretation of the Fourth
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.
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
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
California was heard by the Supreme Court, Riley stated that a smartphone and whatever it may contain does not provide a threat to police officers, therefore People v. Diaz does not apply. Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor, served as Riley’s representation (Riley v. California, n.d.). He boiled his argument down to the searching of a cell phone is nothing more than an invasion of privacy, as most people now have their entire life on their personal devices (Liptak, 2014).
California were simply that given the time constraint with which to investigate the crime scene and allow for transportation of the offender to a medical facility there was no time to obtain a warrant. These facts allowed the warrant-less blood draw to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This was the precedent until the case of Missouri v. McNeely.
Elijah manuel was sitting in the passenger seat of a car when he gets pulled over. The officer smelt marijuana, so he dragged him out of the car and patted him down. He found a bottle of pills, tested it, and falsified the results to show the pills were ecstasy. They were later tested again and proven not to be ecstasy. Charges were then dropped and Manuel sues the city of joliet and the city police officers. His malicious prosecution claim was dismissed under Newsome v. McCabe which held that that federal claims of malicious prosecution steam from the right to due process and are not a Fourth Amendment issue. So the question presented to the court was whether or not an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search
On February 28, 2018 Judge William H Orrick was presented a case of the City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions and State of CA v. Sessions. [http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/city-and-county-san-francisco-v-sessions-and-state-ca-v-sessions] The procedural posture was a motion to dismiss and the issue at hand was regarding immigration status verses enforcement.
The Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) was investigating the tax return of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. As part of their investigation, The IRS sought materials such as documents and tapes that were in possession by the District Court. Their purpose seeking these documents was due to the connection to California v. Armstrong, a case involving the Church of Scientology. In the Armstrong case, there were allegations by the Church that one of their former members had unlawfully obtained materials, such as documents and tapes regarding the Church’s activities. The I.R.S. issued summons to the court and were granted access to inspect those materials. The Church of Scientology acquired a restraining a restraining order against the I.R.S. , requiring them to retain all obtained materials back to the District Court. The I.R.S. decided to fight back through the District Court. Both parties made arguments regarding the scope of attorney-client privilege. The Church of Scientology fought for the continued protection of these documents under attorney-client privilege due to the fact that they believed that the IRS did not seek these documents and tapes out of goodwill.The I.R.S., however, believed that they should be granted access to the documents
Riley vs. California is a recent court case that has redefined cell phone privacy in criminal cases. Decided by the Supreme Court in 2014, it states that cell phones may not be searched without a warrant. Because this decision protects the privacy of arrestees, the judicial process, the trustworthiness of police officers, and does not hinder pending investigations, I support the Supreme Court’s decision.
Terry was a Clevaland man that was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Terry was stopped and searched by an officer that suspected that Terry was going to potentially rob a store. The officer was observing Terry, and approached Terry for questioning, however, he decided to search him first. This quick frisking produced a concealed weapon, which, was why he was charged with the concealed weapon offense. The problem in this case whether a search for weapons without a probable cause of arrest is an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment. Terry allegated that it violated the fourth amendment, in the point of protecting against unreasonable search and seizure. "In a multipart holding, the court acknowledge that because
A big case in warrantless search of cell phone revolves around Riley vs. California. In this case the police took his cell phone without a warrant after they suspected him to be a possible murder suspect when they found guns that matched the scene of the crime. Though this is on the extreme end of warrantless search it is still wrong. Riley is suing because they conducted this warrantless search on him which led to his conviction and arrest. If the police would have gotten a warrant, then everything would have been ok. But instead they labe...
California originally passed the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) on September 18, 1959 with amendments made overtime as issues came up and amendments were needed (Fair Employment and Housing Acts). The FEHA prohibits discrimination in employment based on the following: Race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, mental and physical disability, medical condition, age, pregnancy, denial of medical care and family care leave, or pregnancy disability leave. Additionally, the FEHA protects employees from retaliation for claiming illegal discrimination against one of these categories. Employees are given one year from the date of the discrimination incident
Mr. Caulfield was stopped for driving a mere two miles an hour over the speed limit, and slightly veering over the centerline of the road. The question that arises on this issue is whether officer Campbell was justified in making the stop in the first place. The reasonableness of the stop comes into question. The stopping of a vehicle and the detention of its occupants are considered a seizure under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. v. Shabazz, 993 F. 2d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1993).