Many things in the United States has advanced in law overtime. The issue we encounter still yet stand, but however our Supreme Court Justices rule in favor or against as they are perceived as a neutral source in America to set laws. The justice many call the “Notorious R.B.G”, Ruth Bader Ginsburg plays a big role in the Supreme Court, based on her voting opinions, ideologies, published work and approaches to the constitution. In the case Sweeney v. Georgia, Ginsburg voting opinion on this cause would be similar to the case of Rodriguez v. United States. In the case Ginsburg opinions of the case “reflected Illinois v. Caballes that the dog sniffing during the traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment of unreasonable seizure” …show more content…
Jones ties the Sweeney v. Georgia case in great detail mainly based upon the GPS on the truck from police, surveillance devices, and the selling of drugs. The surveillance of the drones and videos Sweeney revealed “is a grave novel threat to personal privacy and security” (Epstein and Walker 472). Justice Ginsburg concurred on the opinion for United States v. Jones stating “…The Court’s reasoning in this case is very similar to that in the Court’s early decisions involving wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping, namely, that a technical trespass followed by the gathering of evidence constitutes a search. In the early electronic surveillance cases, the Court’s concluded that a Fourth Amendment search occurred when private conversations were monitored as a result of an “unauthorized physical penetration into the premised occupied” by the defendant.”(Epstein and Walker 474). The opinion shows how in Sweeney v. Georgia when the cops flew the drones over the residency that it is eavesdropping and trespassing on someone’s property. The case is same as Sweeney v. Georgia due to the drones being flown over the wrong address that’s an invasion of the Aryan States member privacy. The courts would apply exclusionary rule or “fruit from the bottom tree,” because the evidence would not be acceptable in trial based upon the police having not …show more content…
Several expressed concerned over how she could transition from social advocate to Supreme Court Justice. In the end, she was easily confirmed by the Senate, 96–3” (“Ruth Bader Ginsburg Biography”). She often “…favors moderation and restraint. She is considered part of the Supreme Court's moderate-liberal bloc presenting a strong voice in favor of gender equality, the rights of workers and the separation of church and state. In 1996, Ginsburg wrote the Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Virginia, which held that the state-supported Virginia Military Institute could not refuse to admit women. In 1999, she won the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award for her contributions to gender equality and civil rights” (“Ruth Bader Ginsburg
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
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
To be able to understand the ruling of the court, we must first look at what happened before it came to the Supreme Court. First of all, the government did get a search warrant allowing a GPS to be installed on the jeep. However, the GPS must have been installed in D.C. and within the ten-day period that it was issued. The GPS was installed on the 11th in Maryland (Cornell 3-4). He was suspected of having and distributing drugs, so with the help of the GPS, FBI agents were able to find where he hid his supply (Savage 1). The jeep was tracked for a total of 28 days (Cornell 3). This case originally started in the lower court. The U.S. Court o...
The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Chief Justice John Marshall affected the American Judicial System. The reader will therefore first find a brief biography of John Marshall. Then the paper will explain in detail the origins of the Judicial Power to subsequently...
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. Jones was arrested by the use of GPS to track his activity for a month, without judicial approval (Body Politic, United States v. Jones). Since the fourth amendment provides protection for search and trespass, the method was direct violation of the constitutional right and Jones was set free from all the charges. Although Jones was found in possession of drugs and should be behind bars, officials should have followed proper protocol to rightfully arrest him. People like Jones should be punished, but being protected by the constitution the proper procedure must be
When the law enforcement searched Wurie’s phone, they did not have a warrant to have the illegal evidence from his cell phone, moreover, it required the court to reconsider Wurie’s sentence. Furthermore, the case of the United States v. Olmstead, Olmstead was suspected as a bootlegger, therefore, got the federal agents to install wiretaps in the basement of his building, convicting him of being a bootlegger with the illegal evidence that got from the wiretaps. Most people argued that the federal agents violated Olmstead’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment, but the court agreed that it did not violate those amendments and that the Fourth Amendment did not require a warrant for wiretapping, if listening devices were outside of the home. Also, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, law officials convicted Mapp of possessing obscene materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. However, during they're illegal search they didn’t find evidence of being a suspect to a crime, they still arrested for obscene materials they found during the search. Since the law officials search was illegal, the Supreme Court agreed that the evidence of the obscene materials be concealed in court by providing a limited
Women’s equality has made huge advancements in the United States in the past decade. One of the most influential persons to the movement has been a woman named Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ruth faced gender discrimination many times throughout her career and worked hard to ensure that discrimination based on a person’s gender would be eliminated for future generations. Ginsburg not only worked to fight for women’s equality but fought for the rights of men, as well, in order to show that equality was a human right’s issue and not just a problem that women faced. Though she faced hardships and discrimination, Ruth never stopped working and thanks to her equality is a much closer reality than it was fifty years ago. When Ruth first started her journey in law, women were practically unheard of as lawyers; now three women sit on the bench of the highest court in the nation.
In the late 1960s, Charles Katz was found guilty under an eight-count indictment for executing unlawful gambling exercises across state borders, which served as an infringement on federal laws. In an attempt to gather more evidence on Katz’s actions, federal agents kept him under six days of surveillance, and then strategically placed a wiretapping device on the outside of a public telephone booth that he had been using over the course of those days. In doing so, they discovered that Katz was transmitting wagering details from Miami to Boston, (Katz 1967). Following these findings, the defendant appealed conviction, claiming that the sound bytes were procured in disregard to the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals rebuffed this plea because the agents never physically stepped inside of the telephone booth, and the Fourth Amendment was not created to protect one’s rights in a public place. But, the Supreme Court overruled the defendant’s conviction and posed another angle of the scenario under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed that Katz had walked into the telephone booth, closed the door behind him, entered an outgoing call fee and placed his call—all under the impression that whatever he verbalized into the phone would solely be for the person at the other end of the line, and never publicized globally. The Majority’s Dissent—or the “opinion,” encompassed the main idea that the Fourth Amendment defends people, and not places, from unjustified searches and seizures; and although Katz did not choose to conceal his identity from the public when placing his phone call in a communal place, he did wish to excuse the unwelcomed ear—The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in Katz’s favor, (Katz 1967).
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
The United States Supreme Court assists law enforcement by ignoring the fourteenth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police thinks a person
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule has undergone a harsh and controversial development. This article not only critically analyzes the numerous alternatives and slight modifications to the exclusionary rule but the advanced by courts and commentators as well, (Schroeder, 1361). The article also puts emphasis on the alternative route of police policy making and a means to control official misconduct and violations of citizens rights. The exclusionary rule is one of the most significant defense stance of the fourth amendment. ITs establishment has created a wide spread of protection against violations of citizens rights.
In the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York ruled in David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, and David Ourlicht, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly stated v. The City Of New York (2013), the rights of law enforcement to cease and desist the practices of “Stop-and-Frisk”. This practice was credited by Mayor Bloomberg for having a strong reduction in the amount of crime in New York City but at a cost of violating the 4th amendment rights of citizens but also especially against
The decision is particularly important because it reversed a district court decision that had held reasonable suspicion was required for border searches of laptop computers (United States v. Arnold, (9th Cir. 2008)). In United States v. Cotterman (9th Cir. 2013) held that border agents needed to have reasonable suspicion before they could conduct a “forensic” search of the defendant’s laptop. “This is the first time a court has placed a limit on the government's ability to search an electronic device at the border”