As of today police officers are required to get a warrant to search any kind of property of the individual being arrested. These warrants require probable cause for the search of specific properties issued by an impartial judge. Those rights are protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Over the years, the United States Court has made exceptions to these requirements, which essentially allow the police to search certain types of property without a warrant and infuriating a lot of citizens. One of the big conflicts that citizens and officers are facing is case of Cellphones and smart phones, until now, the Court had not addressed whether this fit into an exceptions. I strongly believe that the rights of citizens should be preserved and a warrant must be issued in order to go through any information on any kind of phones. In the cases of Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Justices looked at whether police need to obtain a warrant to search the content of a cell phone that is seized from a person who is arrested. In Riley, the defendant was...
A warranted search is per say reasonable. Officers may then employ various reasonable means of obtaining the information, e.g. search the content of U.S. mail, one’s house or office, or deploy an undercover agent as in Lewis v. United States (1966). They may, without need for physical intrusion as under the archaic trespass doctrine, utilize modern surveillance methods, such as electronic eavesdropping as in Lopez v. United States (1963) or heat signatures. (Solove and Schwartz 83) Under the third party doctrine, officers may obtain information that you voluntarily provide to your bank, accountant, ISP or e-mail provider as per United States v. Forrester (2008). (Ibid 197; 199) Conversely, “a warrantless search is generally considered to be per se unreasonable.” (Ibid 99) As noted in Katz v. United States (1967), “‘the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’ and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable…” (Ibid 99) Fail to meet any of the four elements and the warrant does not meet constitutional muster (see Berger v. New York (1967) wherein officers failed to stop surveillance at
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.
It has been a controversial topic for many years since s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enabled when the Charter came into effect in 1982. When or if a police officer were to come up to you under suspicion that you have something illegal or detrimental in your backpack they are not allowed to search or seize anything without a warrant. There are pros and cons to this topic because under section 7 everyone has the right to life, liberty and security so in a negative light if citizens feel unsafe because a person is suspicious and putting others in danger the police are not allowed to interfere without a warrant to make sure that evidence does not become void in a court case, if it arises to that. In a positive light if someone calls 911 and they are in trouble and the police are able to get a warrant on time to help then it would save lives and make society a more secure environment. There has been various cases where spatial privacy has been abused different ways: telephone, Internet, and etc. At this point many may agree that the law itself (Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom) may need to be updated in terms of specifying when it’s needed for a warrant and when it’s not as technology has also been updated since the Constitution was made in 1982. Society’s view may change after cases like R v. Tse, as police can yet invade ones privacy constitutionally or not it may also
Privacy comes at a cost. It brings people who fight for the people the privacy of others when it is violated together. Cops not being able to search when they seize a cell phone makes them risk their lives because how people these days are, there could be bombs in the phone. Even though this amendment was ratified, people to this day still don’t have privacy they rightfully deserve. This effects me because I’m able to keep special information to myself. Also, if a police pulls over a family member and ask for their phone to investigate without giving a proper reason or having a warrant, that family member could say no. If a police hasn’t given you a good reason to hand something over, you have the right to resist or else the police are being unconstitutional. This amendment gives people the safety to do what they want(that’s legal). It also makes life better, but harder. Life is harder with this amendment because you have to watch out for who you trust that they won’t do anything to jeopardize your safety. This is relevant because a man in Indiana was tracked down by a GPS. It didn’t violate his 4th Amendment because the police got a warrant to put a tracking device in his mom’s car. This case represents how technology gives advantages and disadvantages. An advantage was that they were able to track him down for a burglary. The disadvantage would be that if they hadn’t gotten a warrant, he could have filed a lawsuit against
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.
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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
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.
One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s rights in due process. The controversial issue from the Fourth Amendment, which some may regard as implied, but others may regard having a broader meaning, comes from the Exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule was created by the Supreme Court and says that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be used against a person in federal court” (Great American Court Cases 360). The Exclusionary rule is considered just because it protects the people’s constitutional rights from being violated and provides a check on the power of law enforcement and state courts.
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case.
During an arrest, the only reason an officer stops you is when you are doing something wrong and is considered a threat to the public safety. When you get searched it is customary for a search warrant to be issued before they invade but, “The Supreme Court is considering whether police may search cellphones found on people they arrest without first getting a warrant…”(John, 2014).As John L Micek from The Patriot News, cellphones are powerful computers that store sensitive personal information and more than 90% of Americans own at least one cell...
Releasing information about police officers is an important discussion between law enforcement and the media. Over the years, is been argued whether police should have the right of privacy, or their personnel information made public. This information can contain officer’s identity and private files. Should the officers’ information be release? In what situations should law enforcement have a right to privacy? Several articles in the document “Police Officers’ Right to Privacy” exemplify the court rulings and legislative actions regarding the matters of officers’ information being release.
One of the hottest topics in privacy is regarding our phone conversation with others. It doesn't take a whole lot these days to be in someone's business, in their conversation, breaking the law of privacy with out spending that much time and money. "…Compared to an average monthly phone bill of seventy dollars, the option to wiretap the average phone line is probably worth less than twelve cents a month to police and spy agencies."1 These days, when information is transferred from one person to another, or from point A to point B, there are more people who are interested in know what they are talking about, not just to know but to benefit something out of it. This is illegal if it is done without the knowledge of the individuals involved. Since people are not giving communication privacy enough attention, it is getting to the point that it is out of control of anybody. Anybody can just get up and get in to others conversation with out their knowledge. This is having a big effect in out community these days. There are a lot of scenarios were people are involved in this situation.
Courts have allowed warrantless searches in situations where it would be impractical or dangerous to delay a search in order to obtain a warrant. Also a warrantless search con is conducted if an incident lead to a lawful Arrest. Police officers may conduct a limited search of a person when they have placed the person under arrest. The search must be limited to the area of the person’s immediate control and be for the purpose of checking for weapons and evidence Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). Police must obtain a warrant, however, to search a person’s cell phone after an arrest Riley v. California, 571 U.S. (2014). Also when an arrest involves a vehicle a police officer may search the vehicle without a warrant during the lawful arrest of the driver, but only if they reasonably believe that the person under arrest might still be able to access the vehicle’s passenger compartment, or the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the offense for which they are arresting the person. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).So in the middle of an investigation, instead of having to wait hours or days to search a house, car, etc. An app connected to a judge computer could send out the details of what kind of crime has taken place, the area that needs to be search, the item that is trying to be recovered. Once that information is sent out, a judge will instantly received the request for a warrant and they can either approve or deny the search