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.
Below are some to consider: 1) Did Not ... ... middle of paper ... ...forcement calibrated the equipment they used to measure your speed recently. Law enforcement must also have used the equipment correctly and prove that the car they measured was the car they pulled over. Without an experienced reckless driving defense attorney, the court may not that the officer who pulled you over provide any of this proof. Our attorneys can bring this challenge to the court’s attention. 5) Proper Signage: Because one of the criteria for reckless driving is that you willfully disregarded the law, this implies that you knew you were breaking the law.
The common routine for this is as follows: A person is pulled over for speeding. The officer approaches the car and after checking the license and registration asks if they have any illegal weapons or drugs in the car. When the citizen answers 'no' the officer asks in the strongest most intimidating language that if he can check that for himself. The officer may say 'why don't you step out of your car' or 'then you would not mind if I took a look in your trunk?? Many people simply comply with the requests because they do not really realize that they have the right to say no (Guidelines?1).
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.
According to U.S. News and World Report, the United States Department of Transportation estimates that two-thirds of fatalities are at least partially caused by road rage/ aggressive driving. This essay will look at some of the arguments for and against road rage/aggressive driving. The major cause of aggressive driving is the discourteous or inattentive driver. Driving behaviors include changing lanes to closely, tailgating and "the number one cause is the left lane hog." (Larson 1) These seemingly small errors infuriate the potentially aggressive driver and cause a transformation indescribable to man kind.
Case Name: MARYLAND v. PRINGLE ( No. 02-809 ) 540 U.S. 366, 124 S. Ct. 795, 157 L. Ed. 2d 769 (2003) Facts: A Baltimore, Maryland police officer initiated a traffic stop, stopping a vehicle for speeding during the early morning. Inside the vehicle was the vehicle owner Partlow, in the driver’s seat, the defendant, Pringle in the front passenger seat, and Smith in the back seat. The officer noticed a roll of money in the glove compartment when Partlow opened it to retrieve his vehicle registration.
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.
Mr. Dansby appeals the judgment of the district court denying the suppression of the evidence, claiming the search was unconstitutional. (R. at 3.) The appellant, Mr. Dansby, was denied his Fourth Amendment rights. Under the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Dansby had “[t]he right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures…” U.S. Const. Amend IV.
Similarly, as this was in violation of the traffic rules the police officers raced after them and stopped them at the side of the road at a red light. Notwithstanding, Whren was found to hold two plastic bags of what seemed like crack cocaine in his hand when the police came to the vehicle. Whren and Brown were thus incarcerated on federal drug charges. Before the trial, counsel for the defense progressed to overturn the possession of drug evidence. They contended that the police were in violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution as the police had wrongly used the pretext of a traffic stop to investigate possible drug crimes
The fact that the government could enter your home and extract any evidence without the proper authority and warrant is not only a violation of privacy but a direct violation of our fourth amendment right. I believe these are the main points because the evidence the federal agents retrieved was the only evidence that was used to convict Weeks. Was Weeks guilty, of course he was but because of federal authorities failing to follow the correct procedures, the evidence along with the case was thrown out the window. The exclusionary rule is a double-edged sword. It can protect citizens from an over step by the government but it can also hurt the government because if procedure is not conducted “by the numbers” you put your whole case at risk of being tossed or