One of the most important amendments in the United States Constitution and which is also part of the Bill of Rights is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people from being searched or arrested by police officers or any law enforcement without a reason. An officer may confront you and ask to search your house but if they don’t have a search warrant, they cannot legally pursue it without good reason and permission from a judge. Now what happens when a person is being arrested? Does the police or any law enforcement need a search warrant? The answer to that question would have to be no. This is where “Search incident to arrest” comes into play. Search incident to arrest (SITA), which could also be called the Chimel rule, is a …show more content…
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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement.
A warrantless search voids the constitutional right of the citizen hence, all the evidence obtained will be evicted by the court of law. While the statement holds true, there are situation where a officer of the law does not require a warrant. "Plane view exception", "Consent", and "Search Incident to Lawful Arrest" are three out of the six exception to the warrant requirement (NPC, Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement). One of the case where the judge ruled out in favor of the defendant for warrantless search is the case of "Rodriguez v. Unites States." The foundation of the case was based upon the timing from when the ticket was issued for a traffic violation to when the dog was called to sniff the car (Constitution Daily, Rodriguez v. United States). While the officer claimed the delay was caused by waiting on the backup, the exception does not fall under the
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. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door and identified himself. He told police that the owner of the house was not home but was coming back later that evening. Police later discovered that Rodney Gant had a warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license. The officers came back to the home later that evening and arrested two individuals. After both individuals were handcuffed and placed in the back of patrol cars, Gant pulled up at the house driving a vehicle. When he stepped out of his car, he was arrested for driving with a suspended license. After Gant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a third patrol car, officers proceeded to search Gant’s car. During their search they found a gun in the car and a bag of cocaine in a jacket pocket laying on the backseat of the car Gant was driving. Gant was charged with possession of the cocaine. He fought to have the evidence found in his car suppressed at trial because, he claimed, the search of his car had been unreasonable. Gant’s motion was denied and Gant was convicted...
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
Throughout time there have been many amendments to the United States Constitution. Some have had little to no effect on the population. One amendment that this writer will take a look at is the Fourteenth Amendment. The wording of the amendment has been debated here recently but bottom line it abolished slavery. This amendment also made an attempt to equalize everyone that is born here in America or naturalized. The ripple effect of this change to the constitution is still being felt today. It is hard to imagine living in a world where the African American community was not considered equal to the white man. A ground breaking distinction in the language written out in the document was that of it applying on the federal level as well as the state jurisdiction. This is especially important as we see the civil union marriages have conflict
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
“The Fourth Amendment wasn't written for people with nothing to hide any more than the First Amendment was written for people with nothing to say.” (Dave Krueger). The Fourth Amendment protects the people's values, including the right of privacy. The Fourth Amendment includes, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated.” When the founding fathers created the Constitution they ensured the people fundamental laws that would be used to any issue portrayed in the Supreme Court. That gave the people a relief that no one is ever above the law that is created. The privacy of the people was a very big value enforced by warrants. In the case of the
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is stated in the United States Constitution as the Second Amendment. Several Americans wish to rid of guns from citizens, disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution. I shot my first gun when I was young and have always been surrounded by them. My neighbor does not leave the house without carrying one, nor does my eighteen year old friend. Never once have I felt unsafe or uneasy knowing that there was a gun close to me. The right to bare arms has become a popular local battle in which some people want to reduce the freedom of one owning firearms while others wish for the
For hundreds of years Americans have been growing up with the notion that it is a right to own a gun. Since the creation of the second amendment, people all over the United States have been able to guns for private use. Guns operated by the public are said to have a variety of uses such as, being able to protect oneself if conflict arises, grants the ability to put food on the table, and are used in competitions shooting targets against other people. But for many people guns have been seen as the root of all evil. Anti-gun users think that guns cause a variety of unexpected and innocent deaths. They also think that there are not enough laws in place that allow just about anyone to purchase a gun. The question of should guns be legal to all citizens has plagued our society. Do you think it is morally right for anyone to arm themselves and use it when they deem it to be necessary? Or do you think that the 2rd amendment seem unnecessary and outdated law that needs to be rewritten? These questions are just two of many that have thrown back and forth between pro-gun and anti-gun users.
The Fourth Amendment provides people with the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Courts have long recognized that the Forth Amendment protected individuals from unjustified police intrusions into one’s person, home, car, or other possessions, but few practical protection mechanisms existed. To preserve these constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court established standards by which police officers must abide. One such protection has been the probable cause — a belief that the person committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order to uphold an arrest or seizure, courts have required a probable cause combined with either a warrant or circumstances
The United States Constitution is a powerful document, outlining many rights offered and obligations assumed both by the government and citizens alike. This document allows for changes to be made through an amendment process in the House of Representatives and Senate.1 Over the years, a total of twenty-seven revisions have been passed, some much more successful than others. The 14th Amendment was written specifically to protect many American citizens, who, prior to that time, had received little, if any, security from the government. Unfortunately, while admirable in concept, the 14th Amendment has not been as effective as was intended. How has this amendment failed the citizens it was written to protect?
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
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.