...Search and Seizure in America CJA/364 February 10, 2015 Search and Seizure in America The fourth amendment has given us the protection against unreasonable search and seizure but what exactly does that mean? To understand, one must define right of privacy, search, seizure, arrest, and reasonableness and how each of these relates to stop and frisk, automotive search rules, and requirements regarding border and regulatory searches. Have you ever been stopped on the street or anywhere and frisked by a police officer? Individuals should be aware of the rules regarding such a situation. In the state of New York, the people, "Mayor Michael Bloomberg" (Wells 2013, p. 1) and the district court judge "Shira Scheindlin" (Wells 2013) argued about reforming the stop and frisk policy. The objective issues in improving system addressed after a stop and frisk case won by the arrestee. In the case involving the arrestee "David Ourlicht" (Whitaker, 2013, p. 1) claimed he was wrongfully stopped and frisked. The officer stopped and frisked the defendant because the object in his pocket resembled a gun. The attorney representing the defendant argued his constitutional rights, and the stop and frisk was unconstitutional. The environment of the Missouri cities, counties, suburbs, and rural area are subject to society socialization, private activity, and deviant behavior which may cause the proper authority to respond to the nature of the action the same as in New York City. Society plays...
Words: 1651 - Pages: 7
...Search and seizure is when a law enforcement/gov. agent looks for evidence in a manner that intrudes into a persons legally protected zone of Privacy. These agents then take possession or control of the property or persons. ( Scheb, 2012) The 4th Amendment puts legal limitations on search and seizure and protects against unlawful search and seizure. The 4th 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 to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The 4th Amendment requires law enforcement officers to get a warrant before conducting search and seizures. In order for the officer to get such warrant he/she must have probable cause. This means that the officer must believe that the search will produce evidence of a crime. (Scheb, 2012) There are a few different types of consent when it comes to search and seizure. Consent to search is when a suspect/ person voluntary allows an officer of the law to search his/her car, home, bag, or whatever it may be. Then there is implied consent, which is when and officer is called to a specific location where a crime has been committed. This is a given that the officer is going to search the area where the crime has been committed. Third Party Consent has in the past and...
Words: 454 - Pages: 2
...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
...Search & Seizure A police officer is dispatched to a call in his jurisdiction for a noise complaint. The police officer arrives hearing very loud music coming from the residence which violates a noise ordinance. The police officer knocks on the front door with no answer so he proceeds to the back door to knock when he observes what appears to be marijuana plants based on his training and experience. The police officer can seize the marijuana plants based on the Plain View Doctrine. “In Harris v. United States (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that anything a police officer sees in plain view, when the officer has a right to be where he or she is, is not the product of a search and is therefore admissible as evidence.” [1] The police officer is legally in a place in which he should be because of the noise complaint call. The police officer recognized the marijuana plants as contraband and has the right to seize them without a search warrant. “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”[2] The police officer needs to obtain a search warrant in order to search the rest of the residence. With no exception present, the police officer would be violating the resident’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure if he conducted a full search of the residence without a search warrant. “The Fourth Amendment is as follows:...
Words: 696 - Pages: 3
...Search and Seizure When it comes to Search and Seizure, allot of people think that law enforcement should not be allowed to search or seize property. I have heard many arguments against this subject, people stating that law enforcement officers go too far or have no right to search someone’s property such as their vehicle. Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion it requires that a combination of facts makes it more likely than not that items sought are where police believe them to be. In addition to establishing probable cause for a search, a warrant must contain the reasons for obtaining it, the names of people presenting the affidavits, what is specifically being sought and the signature of the judge issuing it. Search and seizure is the process used by law enforcement officers, who suspect that a crime is being or has been committed. Law enforcement officers search a person’s property and confiscate any evidence related to the crime. In situations where it would be unreasonable for a person to expect privacy, there is no search to justify, so no warrant is needed. Law enforcement officers make may kinds if searches, from crime scenes, suspects, dead bodies, vehicles, hotel rooms, apartments, homes and offices. Searching is a very important task in most criminal investigations because of the evidence that can be obtained. Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion it requires that a combination of facts makes it more than likely than not that items...
Words: 1209 - Pages: 5
...Constitutional Law Dr. Wilson April 22, 2014 Search and Seizure Response Paper I believe that the courts have put in place certain safeguards and limitations that ensure police officers do not interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. I could go into how search and seizure is defined and what is necessary for a warrant, but I want to go into a different direction and discuss how technology is changing the meaning of ; "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." These few words are meant to guarantee every person in the United States two basic liberties; the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary intrusions. With advances in new technology, the phrase " unreasonable searches has become somewhat blurred. In Katz v United States, the Supreme Court ruled that although Katz was in a public venue (i.e. a phone booth with the door closed), he still had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was the Supreme Court's attempt to make the Fourth Amendment adaptive to the changing surveillance technology. Although the court ruled in favor of the Defendant, there is still a lengthy gap between the availability of new technology to law enforcement and laws regulating...
Words: 523 - Pages: 3
...Public Safety and Individual Rights Paper Robert Gubbins University of Phoenix January 20, 2014 AJS/552 There are many challenges that law enforcement agencies faces when it comes to enforcing public safety at the same time protect the rights of individuals. This paper will focus on several key topics involving the relationship between public safety and individual rights. The first topic is the statutory authority and responsibilities of government officials, security personnel, and private citizens. The next topic involves the practices or laws relating to search, seizures, and surveillance by police, corrections, private citizens, and security personnel. This paper will also compare the laws relating to the use of force by police, corrections, and private security. And the paper will conclude with individual privacy rights and laws relating to policy, practices, and procedures. The United States is a country that is a representative democracy. In other words, the laws reflect the will of the people and the government officials reflect and enforce the laws and rules according to federal, state and local guidelines. (scholastic.com) This also means that we elect our officials and they are sworn to uphold the laws and duties of their respective offices. The citizens of this country pay taxes in order for the government to function and to provide services to help public safety and protecting life and property against those who wish to take them away...
Words: 1856 - Pages: 8
...intellectual property with him to his new employer (undoubtedly a Makestuff competitor). In particular, Mr. Andfirum is worried about the loss of the source code for “Product X,” which the company is counting on to earn millions in revenue over the next three years. Mr. Andfirum provides you a copy of the source code to use in your investigation. Lastly, Mr. Andfirum tells you to remember that the Company wants to retain the option to refer the investigation to law enforcement in the future, so anything you do should be with thought about later potential admissibility in court. The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “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...
Words: 1700 - Pages: 7
...directed at protecting the citizens under the law. The amendments in the Constitution, however, significantly play a role in protecting the citizens under the United States Constitution. Of the amendments, the 4th amendment grants citizens the rights against “unreasonable searches and seizures” (Schmalleger 2013). However, if this amendment is breached, the exclusionary rule applies, regarding any evidence obtained illegally unusable in trial. The evidence that is obtained illegally may not be used on the accused. The exclusionary rule protects citizens from unlawful searches. For example, if an officer pulled over a citizen for speeding, the police officer has the right to question the driver. The police officer also reserves the right to check for a valid driver’s license and insurance. However, for a routine traffic stop, the officer does not have the right to search through the trunk of the accused without a warrant. The law grants reasonable searches, as opposed to unreasonable searches – searches without a warrant. The exclusionary rule applies to all evidence obtained and related to a case. The Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine denotes that “later evidence that derived from the illegal seizure” may also not be permissible in court (Schmalleger 2013). In other words, if the evidence previously obtained is illegal, the relating evidence later is also tainted to be deemed illegal. The Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine protects citizens from indictment derived from evidence obtained...
Words: 769 - Pages: 4
...thrive securely. Assets can be the trade secrets of a company, their network, confidential data, computer hardware, and lastly, its employees. Employers have a difficult decision of deciding the rights of their employees versus protection of themselves. Employers also feel that they have the right to monitor their employee’s internet usage, email, and telephone calls to prevent liability from sexual harassment within the company via email (inappropriate jokes) and to monitor computer usage for employee performance instead of second-hand reports from managers. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" (U.S. Const., amend. IV). (Rothstein, n.d.) What about the employee’s rights and protection? The Fourth Amendment is supposed to...
Words: 664 - Pages: 3
...1.Introduction The Bill of Rights is the name for the first ten amendments in the . One of the amendment is the right to privacy, the right to illegal searches and seizures; the right to a warrant. The original words are “ 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 upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation , and particularly”(The constitution). This amendment was written on September 25,1789 and ratified in December 15,1791 . The amendment I will be discussing you is the fourth amendment , this amendment gives you the right to have privacy and secures it against any unreasonable searches. This amendment was added...
Words: 1230 - Pages: 5
... Question 1: How did the police find this illegal material? Professor Angevine’s wife tipped the authorities of her husband’s activities. Officers from the Stillwater, Oklahoma Police Department seized the computer and turned it over to a computer expert who used special technology to retrieve the data that had remained latent in the computer's memory despite Professor Angevine attempt to erase the pornographic files. Question 2: Did the police obtain a search warrant before conducting this search? Yes, with the cooperation of Professor Angevine's wife, officers from the Stillwater, Oklahoma Police Department obtained a search warrant to look for child pornography on his University computer. Question 3: Then why wasn’t this search illegal under the 4th Amendment? Why didn’t the court hold this evidence to be inadmissible under the exclusionary rule? The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. To establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment, however, a defendant must prove that he has "a legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place searched. This, in turn, requires defendant to show both that he has "a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched" and that "that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize." In analyzing whether a defendant employee has reasonable expectation of privacy in spaces or equipment supplied...
Words: 902 - Pages: 4
...Stop and frisk should not be legal because it isn't used improperly and it is mostly only used against colored people instead of everyone. It also breaks the 4th and 14th amendment which is really the people's right so, the government should really get rid of stop and frisk because it is doing no good to america. The reason stop and frisk exists is fine but not how they attend to use it. Stop and Frisk gives authorities the rights to search a suspicious person of their choice whenever they want. They are trying to drop crime rates. Stop and Frisk is giving officers a lot of power. There are two sides to stop and frisk but on Joe's side he talks about stop and frisk only targeting colored people from the age of 18-35(Stringer, Scott). So therefor stop and frisk is just being added to something going off of your race.. Innocent people are dying today. Innocent people are dying today. Stop and Frisk is used commonly in New York. Although most people disagree with stop and frisk the causes are still intended for the same people....
Words: 949 - Pages: 4
...an activity is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? Privacy approach it’s deciding what constitute a search. The government argued there was no search of a person, house, papers, or effects, so the Fourth Amendment did not apply. 2. Please explain the Exclusionary Rule? How does the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) relate to the rule? Exclusionary rule is a rule of evidence that excludes evidence from being admitted in criminal trial. This rule relate to the case Mapp v. Ohio for the first time to protect the rights by the Fourth Amendment as the protection of the rights of the citizens of freedom from unreasonable search. 3. How does the plain view doctrine differ from the open fields doctrine? Plan view doctrine...
Words: 601 - Pages: 3
...the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person. At the same time, it recognized that in certain circumstances, public safety might require a limited "seizure," or stop, of an individual against his will. The Court consequently set forth conditions circumscribing when and how the police might conduct a Terry stop. They include what has become known as the "reasonable suspicion" standard. 392 U. S., at 20-22. Justice White, in a separate concurring opinion, set forth further conditions. Justice White wrote: "Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Id., at 34. After Terry v. Ohio case, police officers only needed reasonable suspicion to search a person for weapons. However, the search is strictly limited to weapons. The case did not do much to change law enforcement or policing. It did, however, codify law enforcement officer's rights to self-protection during citizen 'contacts or stops for "reasonable suspicion" only. Police are entitled to search a suspect based on reasonable suspicion rather than the much higher standard of probable cause. A police officer now has the right to detain and search any individual, without...
Words: 1027 - Pages: 5
