Ddk Dbq

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.

Issue: Is the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view considered prohibited

“The court thus appeared to adopt a categorical rule barring the seizure of any contraband detected by an officer through the sense of touch during a patdown search for

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

The majority opinion discussed the Fourth Amendment and explains now it provides the the ability to arrest individuals without a warrant when the officers have probable cause that a suspect has committed a criminal offense. During this traffic stop, the arresting officer determined a crime had occurred. It was up to the court to determine if the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle. Chief Justice Rehnquist determined that the arresting officers proved a crime occurred and there was probable cause to determine Pringle should be arrested. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, when three people are in the car where drugs are located and the owner of the drugs is not clear with no one admitting possession, it is reasonable for the officers to believe that either one or all of the occupants of the vehicle committed the offense.

In 1988, California v. Billy Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten was about a suspecting of selling and using drugs in Mr. Greenwood house a narcotic officer told the man to bring her the trash bag which Greenwood had placed out the street for pick up, but as the officer search the bags she found drug paraphernalia which was used as evidence to convict Mr. Greenwood but the lower court revoked it because she search the trash bag without a warrant and that was a violation of the fourth amendment. but the trash bags was placed on the street were any child or animal can unseal it so he could not argue about his privacy if it was out in the police for anything or any person to expose the content of the bags but the court stated “ the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public “ this means

Procedural Facts Kyllo tried to have the evidence that was found in his home suppressed as he felt his rights to the Fourth Amendment were being violated. However, the Ninth Circuit decided that the use of a thermal image device did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This decision was then reversed. The Court then determined whether or not there was cause for the search warrant without the use of the imaging device. After rehearing the case, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the court in stating that the use of a thermal imaging device is not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

This violated his fourth and fourteen Amendment rights. The courts made impermissible Use of the testimony even if law enforcement had reasonable suspicion. Rule of law: An individual cannot be brought to a police station and fingerprinted without probable cause or a warrant. The courts compared the cases of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721. (Investigatory detentions).

This case is freedom vs order argument. They say that the vice-principal had the constitutional right to search the bag, he had reasonable suspicion and that is the magic word that gives students expectation of privacy while balancing it with law and order of the school. The court goes on to say that he’s further not violating the constitution because once he saw the evidence, it was in plain view and theirs a plain view doctrine which is another exception to the fourth amendment which

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.

Before the 20th century, there were few, if any, cases based on the Fourth Amendment. However, as surveillance by law enforcers became more common, these tactics, and others, were scrutinized in court cases throughout the 20th and 21st century. Within the past 50 years there have been more and more cases held to determine whether or not a citizen’s right were being violated or if authorities were within the law. Like a story with multiple timelines, the outcome of a case disputing the fourth amendment is not always clear or predictable. PII Like many of the other amendments, already established traditions of British law supported the concept of the IV Amendment.

Cell phone can unveil information within our call history, text messages, pictures, and even internet searches. Access to our cell phones is like access to our lives. No matter how much time passes, the fourth amendment continues to

The Fourth Amendment clearly states that the police must have a warrant to search a someone’s home and personal belongings. Though the police had probable cause, the murder they intended to find could not be located in Mr. Dexter’s car. The police and investigators searched Mr. Dexter’s car without obtaining a search warrant because they did not have enough time to get one. In the car they found a gun that did not relate to the

Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1969)) • The officer who conducted search on Ybarra provided no evidence that he believe he was armed and dangerous , the search of Ybarra was a violation of his constitutional rights and the decision of the lower courts were reversed • The decision was majority 6 justices to 3, the dissenting opinions were from Justice Rehnquist , Justice Blackmun and Justice Burger they argued that the search of the bar was necessary and the case presented a different set of circumstances to the Terry v Ohio suspicion standard stating that an officer is in more danger executing a warrant than making a standard police stop on the