Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fourth amendment analysis
4th amendment analysis
A court case dealing with the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fourth amendment analysis
Reasonable suspicion can be found in the first clause of the Fourth Amendment (Siegel, 2012). It is considered the evidence necessary to prove that a crime has been committed (Siegel, 2012). There is not an exact minimum needed, however Justices have figured it has to fall below the evidence necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt needed in a trial (Siegel, 2012). This part of the Fourth Amendment is also included in the foggy understanding. There is a bias towards how this clause should be read and understood (Bloom, 2003). A vast majority of the courts show preference towards the reasonableness clause and that is should be read separately from the warrant clause (Bloom, 2003). Researches feel that this interpretation of the clause leads to more discretionary power to the government than the original framers intended (Bloom, 2003). The court continues to use the historical context in recent rulings in cases (Bloom, 2003). In Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that to give meaning to the reasonableness term, it is useful to determine the intent of the Framers (Bloom, 2003). In Kyllo v United States (2001) the court continued to recognize the importance of the home; such as by announcing ones self before a home search to determining the Fourth Amendment reasonableness (Bloom, 2003). In Atwater v City of Largo Vista (2001), Justice David Souter turned to the history of the Fourth Amendment to determine the power of an officer to make an arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor that did not involve a breach of the peace (Walker, 2003, pp. 239-252). Justice Souter concluded that the evidence suggested that the framers did not view a warrantless arrest for misdemeanor, unaccompanied by real o... ... middle of paper ... ...rests-warrants. Georgetown Law Journal, 71(2), 342-369. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from http://df9uh2wc8b.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2014-03-31T00%3A07%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_ofa&rft_val Siegel, L., & Worrall, J. (2012). Introduction to Criminal Justice (14th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Stephens, O. H., & Glenn, R. A. (2006). Unreasonable searches and seizures rights and liberties under the law. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-Clio. Walker, J., & McKinnon, K. (2003). Atwater v. City of Lago Vista: Police Authority to Make Warrantless Misdemeanor Arrests. Journal of Contempary Criminal Justice, 19(2), 239-252. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from http://ccj.sagepub.com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/content/19/2/239.full.pdf+html
Wright, J. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice. (p. 9.1). San Diego: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUCRJ201.12.1/sections/sec9.1
Seigal, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
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
In the Supreme Court case, Chunon Bailey vs United States, it deliberate on Bailey 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) was violated when the police officer detain Bailey before the warrant was executed. (updated)
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
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
Schmalleger, Frank, Criminal Justice A Brief Introduction, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education Inc. , 2010, Page 387
Gaines, L.K., & Kaune, M., & Miller, R.L.(2000) Criminal Justice in Action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
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.
Maguire, M., Morgan, R., and Reiner, R. (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 5th ed. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.
Schmalleger, F. (2009), Prentice Hall, Publication. Criminal Justice Today: An introductory Text for the 21st century
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27, 343-360. http://ccj.sagepub.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/content/27/3/342
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.
Legal Information Institute. (2010, August 9). Retrieved February 17, 2012, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law