A person has a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. This argument was used in the Oregon court of appeals when George Daniel Snow filed an appeal using the malicious prosecution tort, similar to abuse of process, as his defense. Summited to the Jackson County Court of Appeals of Oregon on May 25, 2011 and filed December 29, 2011, Mr. Snow argued that his arrest for possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, and one count of delivery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.890, was unconstitutional.
Upon entering the door of the Jackson County Courthouse there are signs posted warning visitors that weapons and “any other item deemed inappropriate” are prohibited in the courthouse and the “persons and property entering the court facility may be searched and or seized to enforce compliance with UTCH3.180 and 6.180”. Upon entering the doors of the courthouse all those that enter in have to place their belongings into a bowl, which is ran through an x-ray 1 machine, the person entering into the courthouse will then proceeds through a metal detector (opinions).
On March 19, 2009, Mr. Snow entered the Jackson County Courthouse (tribune) and obeying the regulations, he put his belonging in the bowl and the officer ran them through the x-ray 1 machine. However when he proceeded through the metal detector he activated the metal detector. Using a hand wand the officer Ms. Hellyer scanned Mr. snow with a “hand wand” to determine the precise location of the metal objects on the defendant, which was determined that the metal object was in Snow’s pocket, and he then removed his keys and added them to the bowl. Hellyer noticed at that time a square box shape in the defendant’s pocket, which she assumed was a cigare...
... middle of paper ...
... George Daniel Snow. 2011 December 2011. 11 February 2012 .
Opinions, Court of Appeals Slip. In the court of appeals of the state of Oregon . 29 December 2011. 09 February 2012 .
Opinions, Oregon Jusicial Department Appellate Court. Court of Appeals Slip Opinions . 08 February 2012. 02 February 2012 .
Tribune, Mail. Emergency Services. 19 March 2009. 08 February 2012 .
Medford Meth conviction overturned by state court. 31 December 2011. 10 February 2012. .
Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf (last visited Apr.4, 2014).
Facts: According to the case Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), an Ohio physician was being investigated for fraud. During the course of the investigation, it was necessary to interview two employees from his practice. Since the employees did not respond to a subpoena, a warrant was issued and the Sheriffs were sent out to the physician’s office where the employees also worked. Upon arrival, the Sheriffs were not allowed to enter the area where the two employees
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.
Lester, etal V Percadani, etal. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Retrieve October 31, 200 http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/conner/01v1182a.pdf
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’ p...
Redding became a starting case against unconstitutional searches of students where a girl had her backpack searched in the assistant principal 's office. After the official searched her bag, the school nurse’s office was her next destination, so the nurse and the administrative assistant could search her clothes and instructed her to shake out the elastic of her bra and underwear (Carpenter 86-87). The tragic part about this case is that it is not the first or final time a similar event has occurred. In the case of Jane Doe, “...or so she was called in this case…”, a student of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas filed a case against her school (Dowling-Sendor 46). Dowling-Sendor tells of how the school regularly conducted searches of book bags and purses, and police officials would take any contraband found. Then any items found would become evidence for a prosecution (46). When school officials searched Jane’s bag, they recovered a container full of Marijuana, and its purpose was to convict Jane Doe on a drug misdemeanor charge. After being charged with this, Jane appealed to the 8th circuit because the District Court first dismissed her case. The court ruled in her favor in a two to one decision, claiming the search caused a violation of her rights. She had every reason to win because school officials search students at this school on a regular basis, and it is
Meyer v. State of Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 Sct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042. (1923)
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.
Wright, Paul. "Prison Legal News - Legal Articles, Cases and Court Decisions." Prison Legal News. Prison Legal News, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. .
Et Al. United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit. N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 10 May 2014.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
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.
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.
"ELK V. WILKINS, 112 U. S. 94 :: Volume 112 :: 1884." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. .
In November of 2001, the State of Oregon brought suit against the Ashcroft ruling charging that it effectively nullifies Oregon's law permitting physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Oregon is the only state to have legalized physician-assisted suicide. Oregon was joined in the suit, Oregon v. Ashcroft, by a number of persons seeking assisted suicide, a physician, a pharmacist, and an assisted suicide advocacy organization. Federal district court judge Robert E. Jones in Portland, Oregon, enjoined enforcement of the Ashcroft ruling pending prompt resolution of the case in his court. The National and Oregon Right to Life brief argues that Ashcroft's decision was fully justified because the federal government can choose to protect all human life through its laws even if the State of Oregon has chosen not to do so. "Just because Oregon allows its doctors to prescribe lethal drug overdoses to patients doesn't mean that the federal government has to agree that this is a legitimate medical use of the drugs," said James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel of the National Right to Life Committee. "The Oregon tail doesn't wag the federal dog. The U.S. government can protect all human lives even if Oregon turns its back on some of them."