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. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California, where the trial court decision was held. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case because of conflict within lower courts, seen in U.S v. Wurie, 13-212 and Riley v. California, 13-132. The petitioner argued that cell phones searched incident to arrest was not constitutional under 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.
Not every American Citizen knows their Constitutional rights, in fact, they may know some but not all their rights like having the right to feel secure in their persons, houses and papers. The fourth Amendment actually prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. But do Citizens know when is ‘ok’ for police officers to actually search their home, car, and other personal stuff? Before a police officer searches anything someone owns they must have reasonable grounds that they will find any type of drugs, weapons and or any ‘stolen goods’. If a serious violent has occurred, the police may enter and search without having any reasonable suspicious or any warrant.
In lieu of getting a warrant, officers decided to use a thermal imager to see the amount of heat coming from the house. A large amount of heat would indicate the use of high-intensity lamps. The officers subsequently obtained their warrant and arrested Kyllo. The Supreme Court ruled that Kyllo’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated as he should be able to assume that he has privacy in his own home. (Farb, 2002) Such limitations also apply to vehicle stops and searches.
The ‘exclusionary rule’ suggests that the prosecution may do without or suppress the ill-gotten gain as evidence obtained from an unlawful seizures and searches (Calabresi, 2003). ‘The Exclusionary Rule’ also allows for the defendant to dispute the admissibility of evidence by introducing a motion at the pre-trial to suppress the evidence. If by any chance the court permits production of said evidence at the trial stage and the jury find the defendant... ... middle of paper ... ...ts too with illegal and unwarranted searches and seizures. It is also the only way to dissuade the constitutional violations of the fourth amendments. References Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (Supreme Court December 11, 1886).
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.
If there is any evidence that has been collected before a warrant was issued or without a warrant, it may be subject to being dismissed from court proceedings. This is to ensure that citizens have the privacy rights that are guaranteed to them per the Constitution; no authorities can just look into a persons’ personal property or seize any property without reasonable cause. When the Mapp Exclusionary Rule should be applied A great example of when the exclusionary rule should be applied is in the Herring v. United States case. In this particular case, the suspect was arrested after sheriff deputies searched another county’s database for a warrant on Herring. When a warrant in an adjacent county was found, Herring was arrested and searched, revealing a gun and methamphetamine found in his vehicle.
1. Constable Tretiak’s conduct prior to Wayne Cashman’s arrest would be found to have been lawful. Prior to arresting Cashman, Constable Tretiak asked Cashman to hand over the marijuana cigarette. Under s 8, unlawful search and seizure of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects civilians from unlawful search and seizure. Constable Tretiak did not have a warrant to search Cashman, therefore, only under s 487.11, exigent circumstances of the Criminal Code, is an officer able to search a civilian without a warrant.
They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask. The officers began to search the apartment without a warrant. As the officers continued searching, one of them (Officer Nelson) found some expensive stereo equipment. The officer had a hunch that the equipment was stolen, so he moved the stereos to record the serial numbers. He then called police headquarters and it was confirmed that indeed the stereo equipment had been stolen.
The verdict of Miranda v. Arizona is an efficient way of informing criminal suspects of their rights established by the Constitution, allowing un-Constitutional confessions to be nullinvoid in the court of law. However, it does not enforce it well enough. For example, a statement taken in violation of Miranda can be used for impeachment purposes and deciding whether evidence derived from a Miranda violation is admissible. Also, Miranda applies to undercover police interrogation and prior to routine booking questions, protecting all suspect in American custody to be aware of their rights. Next, it says that police may not continue to interrogate a suspect after he makes a request for a lawyer.
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.