The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. 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. …show more content…
His actions were not backed up by the U.S. Constitution. The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against. I felt that this case was handled well, but only to the point of where the officer began to move the stereo equipment and search for the serial number and write it down. He had no right to move Mr. Hicks’ items, the officers where there to make an arrest not to search the area or to touch Mr. Hicks’ possessions. Officer Nelson should have never gone beyond the search of Mr. Hicks and look around his apartment. This biggest issue concerning this case was whether or not the officer had a right to search the stereo equipment beyond the original search, and weather it was reasonable under the fourth or fourteenth amendments. To me this is the biggest issue because it was mainly the only issue of this …show more content…
If the officers had gotten a search warrant they would have been fine as long as they put the stereo equipment as an item to be searched. The greatest problem that existed within this case and how it relates to the Constitution as I see it is, why the officer went beyond the “plain view” doctrine. He should have never moved the stereo to record the serial number. The fourth amendment is clear on how to search; this officer clearly did an unreasonable search and seize pertaining to the stereo. The Fourth Amendment clearly states you must have probable cause, not reasonable suspicion to search. And it also states if you do search it should always just be the original search you confirmed not going beyond that. Some solutions that I believe could improve the Constitution are nothing. The Constitution clearly states on what to do and how to do it, pertaining to the Fourth Amendment. This case is a good example of how not to do a search, relating to the “plain view”
As a result of the suspect, P.C Spicer asked the defendant for a piece of identification, and Mr.Nanokeesic responded the identification was in his backpack and P.C Spicer told him to get it. Nevertheless, the other office P.C Bannon formed intention to search his backpack during the unlawful detention. The police said “perhaps I need to look for you.” At this point he reached out for the strap of Mr.Nanokeesic’s backpack. In R.v.Mohamd, the court held that the Officer must subjectively believe that person is committing or has committed an indictable offence and their belief is based on objectively reasonable grounds. There was no evidence of Mr.Nanokeesic was committing an indictable offence. Also, the detention of Mr.Nanokeesic was unreasonable and unlawful. In short, the police did not have any lawful basis to conduct a
Brennan (Majority Decision): Justice Brennan read the decision which stated that the ruling from the previous court was not consistent with decisions from other courts regarding the same types of cases (Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 1986).
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
The decision comes with a number of justices choosing to concur in part and dissent in part, the court said that the searches and seizures of Coolidge’s property were unconstitutional. Justice Stewart’s opinion wrote that the warrant authorized to seize his automobile was not valid because it was not issued by a “nature and detached magistrate.” Stewart also rejected the argument of New Hampshire argument to make an exception to the search warrant with “special circumstances” neither the incident to arrest doctrine nor the plain view doctrine justified the search, and that an automobile exception was also
The case came to the Supreme Court as the infamous Federal versus State battle for power. Once again the question plagued Marshall whether to support Federalism, or keep States’ rights alive.
Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp ?because she had been belligerent.? Dragging Mapp upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter?s bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement.
In this court case I do believe that most of the evidence found in this case should be thrown out because it was found out illegally. The officers stop was over after he found out about the computer. Also the officer did not have the right to move around the things in his trunk to find out about the computer. Mr. Wilson also should not have been convicted since he was asking for an attorney and that told you have the access to in your Miranda Rights. In my opinion Mr. Wilson's 4th and 6th Amendments were violated in the search for the car and the confession.
The case was decided 6-3 in favor of Alvarez. The Supreme Court ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined in a plurality opinion. The plurality stated that freedom of speech under the First Amendment protects lying and false statements. Although the lies are frowned upon and socially unacceptable, the First Amendment protects those types of statements. With the application of strict scrutiny to this case, the Justices within the plurality found that the Stolen Valor Act was very broad and if it had more specific restric...
Mann (2004) is another precedent setting Supreme Court case, whose main issue dealt with search and seizure laws that infringed upon Phillip Mann’s rights that are guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The issue that was brought before the court was if the investigative detention against Mann was a violation of his section 8 Charter rights, which states that “everyone has the right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure”. The purpose of the search was to determine if Mann was in possession of illegal weapons because it so happened to be that he was in the same place a crime scene investigation for a burglary was happening and coincidentally matched the suspect description. While police were searching Mann, the officer felt a soft bag in Mann’s sweater pocket. Even though the officer was aware they were only investigating for weapons, the officer intentionally pulled out the bag of Marijuana and arrested Mann immediately. This case went to the Supreme Court, where the court stated that “investigative detention was definitely reasonable given that Mann matched the suspect description and was close to the crime scene, but it was not done for valid objective because the cops could only search for officer safety- once soft object was felt, there was no risk (i.e was not a gun)- ultimately determining that the officer should not have pulled the bag out of Mann’s pocket, resulting in the Supreme Court ruling that the search
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to 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.
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
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.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
A video from a dash cam showed what seemed to prove the officer had liable reason to shoot the man but when audio was released with the video the perspective really came into view. In the video the man is seen stepping out of his car as the officer told him to do, but when the officer tells the man to get his license and he reaches in the car to grab it he is shot. The officer is heard telling the man to “put his hands up and get out of the car.” When the man was shot he had his hands in the air, with his wallet in hand. While the officer had the right to defend himself against a potential threat it was extremely unnecessary to shoot at the man. Thankfully the man was not killed in the shooting but the man’s lawyer stated that his client was not unhandcuffed until an officer remembered that he did not have his handcuffs and went to the hospital to retrieve them.
Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.