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.
Constable Tretiak caught Cashman in possession of a controlled substance as shown in Schedule I. Section 495(2) imposes a duty not to arrest unless there are reasonable grounds the accused will not appear in court or for public interest (establishing identity, secure evidence, and to prevent the continuation of the offence). Cashman did not have identification on him; therefore, Constable Tretiak did not know the identity of Cashman and was able to arrest Cashman prior to the checks. Constable Tretiak’s arrest of Cashman did not change after his computer checks. Section 524(2) of the Criminal Code states that a Peace Officer can arrest the accused without a warrant if the accused violated an undertaking given to him.
In Wurie vs. United States, Brima Wurie was arrested on suspicion of selling narcotics from his vehicle; from there police took under custody. Where they when through his call log when they noticed that the phone was repeatedly receiving calls. Officers traced the number to a location different to the address that Wurie had given them. After getting a search warrant they discovered crack cocaine, marijuana, cash, and firearms. The 1st U.S Circuit Court of Appeals threw out evidence found in the search stating that search incident to arrest exception does not authorize the warrantless search of data on a cell phone seized from an arrestee.
Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence.
Harris" while the defendant Harris refuse permission to search his car, the sniff dog alerted the officer in charge about the controlled substance in the car handle which stands for a probable cause (Constitution Daily, Folrida v. Harris). With the above three case in mind, one can conclude that the IV Amendment is as easy to violate as easily as it protects the citizen. Sniff dogs are one of many other cases that has contributed to the questioning the IV Amendment along with racial profiling. Another major issue that has kept the controversy of 'unreasonable search and seizure ' is the use of GPS Surveillance on a suspect vehicle. 'United States v. Jones ' the case where judge ruled the evidence obtained were by usurping Jones, hence not acceptable in the court.
Law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion and probable cause to pursue the defendant. A police officer, whom may have probable cause to believe that the defendant is in the process of a crime or a crime committed, is able to enter the garage to arrest the individual without an arrest warrant or search warrant. Under the fourth amendment the police officer is not required to delay his investigation to do so would endanger their lives and others. (Katz v. United States). Nonetheless, if the defendant is caught in a hot pursuit, and after the defendant’s vehicle has been impounded by the police, the defendant and officers have the right to search it for the purpose of making an inventory of the contents in the vehicle, used as evidence.
Introduction The fourth amendment states, “The United States Constitution provides the right of the people to be secured in their persons, house, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and should not be violated, and no warrants should be issued, but upon probable cause sustained by Oath or affirmation, and specifically the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (law.cornell, n.d.). With that being said, in order for the authorities to search and seize an individual, police officers must have probable cause that an individual has committed a crime, police officer must fill out a legal documentation with further details of what it intends to search and seize to receive a warrant, and lastly, they may proceed with
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.
This warrant requirement can be waived depending on the circumstances of the incident. Some examples of this include the automobile exception, emergencies, searches incident prior to arrest, and exigent circumstances. Police may also make warrantless arrests provided they have probable cause before the arrest. In this... ... middle of paper ... ...hed the car in places where contraband would not normally be found, but it had no relation to the discovery of the cocaine. The weapons found at the ranch are admissible due to the fact the agents had a warrant to search the ranch for drugs and weapons.
David Leon Riley was arrested on August 22, 2009 for having possession of firearms. Under Chimel and Robinson, police officers were allowed to search his person and the area around him for potential weapons or possible evidence that could be destroyed without a warrant. Before Riley vs. California this also included his cell phone. Through looking at his cell phone, the police officers found photos and videos of him associated with a gang and they tied him to a shooting of a rival gang weeks prior (Riley v. California). Technology is a rapid force that is changing the very ideals of modern life.