...upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly the place it be searched, and persons or things to be seized.” (Constitution of the United States of America) (Whitebread & slobogin, 2008) When looking back we see that the Amendments are set in place to protect the people and give them certain rights to. The Amendments are or are not followed by the letter, yet in some instances they also can cause conflict of for example we can look at the different insistences in history that this procedure has been altered because of the laws itself. “In the case of Boyd v. United States in 1886; the court contented that the papers obtained through a subpoena should be excluded because it would cause the witness to be witness against himself...meaning of the Fifth Amendment.” (Whitebread & slobogin, 2008) This is totally ridiculous because our fore fathers should have reread the Constitution to make sure that one Constitution law did not interfere with the other Constitution laws. How can law enforcers be effective and sure when they have to constantly be on guard not to violate the constitution of the people, yet in still maintain order and peace? Even through there’s conflict in the Constitution, the government and elected representatives of the people are trying change it so that it still protect the peoples and do not violate their rights to at the same time. We see these changes in next few sited cases that by all intents and purposes of the law now...
Words: 1177 - Pages: 5
...for a violation of s. 346.63(2) or (6) or 940.25, or s. 940.09 where the offense involved the use of a vehicle, or upon arrest subsequent to a refusal under par. (ar), a law enforcement officer may request the person to provide one or more samples of his or her breath, blood or urine for the purpose specified under sub. (2). Compliance with a request for one type of sample does not bar a subsequent request for a different type of sample. S. 343.305 (3)(2) states if a person is the operator of a vehicle that is involved in an accident that causes the death of or great bodily harm to any person and the law enforcement officer has reason to believe that the person violated any state or local traffic law, the officer may request the operator to provide one or more samples of his or her breath, blood, or urine for the purpose specified under sub. (2). Compliance with a request for one type of sample does not bar a subsequent request for a different type of sample. A person who is unconscious or otherwise not capable of withdrawing consent is presumed not to have withdrawn consent under this subdivision and one or more samples specified in par. (a) or (am) may be administered to the person. If a person refuses to take a test under this subdivision, he or she may be arrested under par. (a). Application: In State v. Seibel, 163 Wis. 2d 164 471 N.W.2d 226 (1991) defendant had been charged with homicide by intoxicate use of vehicle move to suppress evidence seized as a result of blood-alcohol...
Words: 4089 - Pages: 17
...Rodriguez v. United States For a long time, Americans have been victims not only of torture but also unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by police officers. However, the status has changed after passing of a related legislation which has effected an alteration in the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has apparently changed the right of the American citizens’ protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. According to the document, individuals have a right to be or feel secured in houses against unreasonable captures and searches. The amendment limits the power of police to search people and seize their homes and property. The applications of the Fourth Amendment in reality, particularly in courts today, have even surprised those who drafted it. The judgment from the case Rodriguez v. the United States is primarily based on the provisions of the document to the Constitution. In this case, a k-9 officer, Morgan Struble, stopped Rodriguez on grounds of driving on the shoulder of a highway, which is a violation of the Nebraska law. The policeman then attended to everything connected with the stopping, including issuing a warning for dangerous driving checking the driving license of Rodriguez. The officer asked the permission to walk his dog around Rodriguez’s car, which was denied. He then ordered the offender to step out of his vehicle while waiting for backup to come. Once the other policemen had arrived at the...
Words: 687 - Pages: 3
...Abstract The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable suspicion must be based with specific expressed facts and not on just an officer’s intuition or guess. The Stop and Frisk law balances crime control, protects an individual’s right, and prevents from unreasonable searches. This law is further implemented and proven in the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio where it was ruled that the search performed was in fact reasonable under the constitution and the fourth amendment. Introduction The Fourth Amendment states, “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...
Words: 1450 - Pages: 6
...Analyzing The Fourth Amendment And Its Impact On The Safety Of Law Enforcement Officers TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. ABSTRACT 3 2. INTRODUCTION 4 3. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 7 4. RELEVANT COURT CASES 9 5. PROPOSED CHANGE 13 6. SOCIAL IMPACT 16 7. CONCLUSION 17 8. REFERENCES 18 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and its impact on law enforcement. Close attention will be paid to the ability of police officers to frisk people, vehicles and occupants of vehicles, also commonly referred to as Terry stops. Currently, the rule of law is that police officers are not able to frisk solely on the basis of officer safety and that they must have a reasonable belief that a person is armed and dangerous prior to frisking. This paper will propose a new standard police should follow. Finally, an examination will be done on the social impact of this new proposed standard. Introduction As Americans, we enjoy freedoms that many around the world do not. These freedoms make us the envy, and the enemy, of millions. The foundation for these freedoms was laid long ago by our founding fathers. After the United States won its freedom from English rule they met to establish the constitution. From several years of schooling I know that in 1789 the first United States Congress...
Words: 3844 - Pages: 16
...2015 Instructor: Bobby Kemp Search and Seizure Search and seizures are highly debated topics in the United States. Stop and frisk, automobile searches and border searches all fall within the guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. Discussed in this paper will be what reasonable searches, seizures and arrests are and how they are applied. Also to be discussed is whether probable cause is needed during warrantless searches and how the right to privacy is weighed. Finally, this paper will discuss how America’s borders are being protected by the Fourth Amendment, and what exceptions to the rule are necessary to protect America’s security interests. Stop-and-Frisk The definition of a “stop and frisk” is when the police temporarily detain a person and “pat down” their outer clothing if a law enforcement officer believes a suspect is armed and dangerous (Center for Public Education, 2015). For example, if a person is observed walking back and forth in front of jewelry store, meets another person around the corner from the store, and an officer observes one person handing the other person something which they put into their jacket. The officer can stop and frisk that suspect because they will have a reasonable suspicion that the suspects could be armed, and are possibly going to commit a crime. A frisk, by definition, is a type of search that requires an officer to have a lawful reason to stop and search (Center for Public Education, 2015). When an officer is going to frisk a person...
Words: 2528 - Pages: 11
...Search and Seizure Louisa Barnes CJ333: Constitutional Law March 16, 2014 Erin Shriver SEARCH AND SEIZURE Constitutional Search The high school students were throwing a party that created so much noise that a noise complaint was lodged with the police by a neighbor. This gave the police the right to enter onto the property to investigate the complaint. Once they arrived at the residence and started talking to the party goers they smelled marijuana on the individuals. Because of the reasonable suspicion and probable cause that criminal activity was taking place they had a right to search the premises. This is found in the Fourth Amendment under Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion (Farlex, Inc., 2014).To protect evidence from being destroyed they also had a need for the search of the premises. To protect themselves as well as possible evidence they were also permitted to frisk the individuals that were out on the porch of the house. This exercise is permitted when they have reasonable suspicion that a criminal activity is taking place (Daniel E. Hall, 2012, pp. 509-510). While frisking the individuals a bag of marijuana was found. This led the police officers to then call for backup for searching the house before evidence inside the property could be destroyed before a warrant could be obtained. While waiting on the backup they proceeded to search the remaining individuals inside the home, again to keep themselves safe. Drugs are a type of evidence that can disappear...
Words: 1268 - Pages: 6
...Authentic Case Assessment on Laws Authentic Case Assessment on Laws 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. The law that governs arrests, searches and seizures, and issuance of warrants (arrest warrants and search warrants) is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, above cited in toto. The Fourth Amendment is applicable only to government arrests as opposed to privately conducted ones, and in cases when the privacy of a person is intruded upon as when a search or arrest is conducted. The provision implicitly advances the exclusionary rule in criminal procedure which states to the effect that no evidence is admissible in court that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Bacigal 2008 p.147). This rule was asserted in the landmark case of Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961) where a woman’s house was searched by police authorities, who has acted on a tip that she was hiding certain bomb suspects, without a search warrant. Finding no bomb suspect, the police instead arrested her for the lewd pictures and books found in her basement on the strength of an Ohio law which prohibited their possession. After convicted in the lower court, a conviction that was affirmed...
Words: 3450 - Pages: 14
...evidence collected support the defendant charges and if probable cause is established. In this hearing if probable cause is not established, the case will be dismissed (del Carmen, Rolando V., 2014). In the Gagnon v. Scarpelli case, the state of Wisconsin revoked probationer Gerald Scarpelli rights to a preliminary hearing due to his admission of violating his probation. Under the United States...
Words: 873 - Pages: 4
... the date of the call, and the time of day. No Financial data, nor content of the calls, were ever obtained by NSA. This action proceeded without a warrant for any of the information provided. In addition, there was no individual suspicion since this was considered “meta-data” or “bulk data collection” of phone records. The vast majority of the data was analyzed by computer programs and never looked at by NSA personnel. Before we delve into an analysis of the court’s decision in this case, it is prudent we first address an important point. Prior to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, few American’s contemplated a threat to homeland security. Today, the fear of terrorism is ingrained in our daily thoughts. Following the events of 9/11, American’s sense of safety nearly vanished, and the direction, and scope of national security were forever changed. The National Security Administration (NSA), a key governmental counterterrorism agency, is responsible for ensuring national security. With this in mind, we believe that a reasonable person would consider the data obtained through these phone records to be of use to the NSA in stopping future terrorist attacks before they occur. Further, if the NSA were to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to wiretap a phone, the...
Words: 2770 - Pages: 12
...of a person by law enforcement officers based on "reasonable suspicion" that the person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio. The case started from a Cleveland police officer arresting three men based on suspicion. Patrolling the downtown area like he had been for many years, the officer spotted two strangers on a street corner. He saw them walking back and forth in front of a store window. Suspecting the two men...
Words: 778 - Pages: 4
...49.0/ 70.0 Points Question 1 of 22 3.5/ 3.5 Points In Hurtado v. California (1884), involving the murder by Hurtado of his wife's lover, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause: A.a. requires jury trials in all state courts. B.b. requires states to provide a grand jury indictment in capital cases. C.c. does not forbid states to use the death penalty because it does not define defendants of a "fundamental right" in capital cases. D.d. does not require states to provide a grand jury indictment in capital cases. Answer Key: D Question 2 of 22 3.5/ 3.5 Points A habeas corpus proceeding is not a separate proceeding from a defendant's criminal case. A. True B. False Answer Key: False Question 3 of 22 3.5/ 3.5 Points In Colorado v. Bertine (1987), the police conducted an inventory search in which they searched Bertine's backpack after arresting him for driving under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court decided that: A.a. the search of the backpack violated the U.S. Constitution. B.b. the search of the backpack did not violate the U.S. Constitution because it was a legitimate inventory search. C.c. the search of the backpack violated the U.S. Constitution because it was conducted on a suspicion that drugs were in Bertine's backpack. D.d. the search of the backpack did not violate the U.S. Constitution because drugs were discovered in Bertine's backpack. Answer...
Words: 2125 - Pages: 9
...stops someone he/she deems suspicious and frisking the person for something. One case that relates to this flaw in the criminal justice system would be the Floyd v. City of New York. The date that this case was filed was on January 31, 2008 by David Floyd, David Ourlicht, Lalit Clarkson and Deon Dennis. This case challenged the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) practices of racial profiling and seeing whether or not the stop and frisk policy...
Words: 1835 - Pages: 8
...The Law July 29, 2012 Your Belongings Can Be Searched, But Not Arbitrarily When a student is under school supervision it is not required for school officials to obtain a search warrant before searching a student and no police have to be involve either for the search or seizure of a student or property. When safety is involve of the student or personnel it is the duty of the school to search a student. A warrant may protect the student and staff but as long as the school officials conduct themselves in a manner viewed reasonable, they don’t have to prove probably causes before searching a student. Searches can be justified if an official prove reasonable suspicion with evidence that the student was in violation of the law or school rules. Reasonableness is a function of whether a search was initially justified, and whether the search was related to the circumstances that called for the search in the first place. A search is not considered reasonable if it is overly intrusive with respect to a student’s age, sex and rules the student has been suspected of violating. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states, “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.” Nowhere in this law does...
Words: 1940 - Pages: 8
...lawyer representing the accused. C. c. filing a complaint, information, or indictment with the court. D. d. notifying the accused by letter. Answer Key: C Question 2 of 20 5.0 Points In the Supreme Court case County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, involving a defendant who argued the state took too long to effectuate a judicial determination of probable cause after his warrantless arrest, the Court held that the test for determining if there has been a "prompt" judicial determination of probable cause is whether the arrestee was brought before a judicial officer: A. a. without unreasonable delay, under all the circumstances. B. b. within 36 hours of arrest, ordinarily. C. c. within 48 hours of arrest, ordinarily. D. d. within 24 hours of arrest, ordinarily. Answer Key: C Question 3 of 20 5.0 Points Although practices vary among jurisdictions, ordinarily an indigent accused is appointed an attorney: A. a. by the police at time of arrest. B. b. by a magistrate at the first appearance. C. c. by a judge at the preliminary hearing. D. d. by a judge at trial. Answer Key: B Question 4 of 20 5.0 Points According to the Supreme Court opinion in U.S. v. Salerno, involving the detention prior to trial of defendants due to the threat they posed to public safety: I. preventive detention is not punishment. II. detention prior to trial must be solely for the purpose of securing appearance at trial. III. when...
Words: 7965 - Pages: 32
