Terry V. Ohio Tests The Limitations Of The Fourth Amendment

Tennessee v. Garner Assignment Tennessee v. Garner is a case where police used deadly force. This is a great case to examine when deadly force should or should not be used. The Fourth Amendments states, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right should not be violated. “Seizure under the fourth amendment would only be reasonable if the suspect posed a threat to safety of police officers or the community at large” Tennessee v. Garner (1985.)

The police practice of carding is fundamentally perceived as a race and class issue that has come to define a tumultuous relationship between police and people of colour from the past to modern-day, causing a mistrust in police and the system. The practice of police stops allow police to operate in a grey area by obtaining evidence and information through psychological intimidation, many times directed to youth. The recent call for legislation and accountability of police has brought the issue to the forefront of media and public concern. There have been many police and community based investigations on the practice, one being the Police and Community Engagement Review (PACER). PACER stipulated that the police were going to go forward

Truth is their fourth amendment right wasn’t violated. McFadden had probable cause to stop these gentlemen and he also had reasonable suspicion which granted him the right to search the young men. Now stop and think for a moment, what if McFadden actually wouldn’t have stopped the group of young men? Could they have possibly robbed the store and hurt or

In the case of Timothy Ivory Carpenter V. UNITED STATES Did the government overstep its bounds in Detroit without getting a probable cause warrant, and did the government violated the 4th amendment of Timothy Ivory Carpenter? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,but upon probable cause, the police have the right to searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That is the 4th amendment. So what are the facts of the case then? (“United States v. Carpenter.”

The 4th amendment states that the right to privacy should not by violated by conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. In the hudson v. Palmer case, an inmate named Russel Palmer sued Ted Hudson who was an officer at the Virginia prison. Palmer stated that the officer had conducted a shakedown of his locker and cell in the attempt to find hidden contraband. After the search turned out to be unsuccessful, Officer Hudson, then charged Palmer for destroying state property, as they found a ripped pillow case in his cell. Ted Hudson won the case, as the court stated that the right to privacy does not apply within a prison cell.

Id. at 29. Moreover, the validity of a detention is to be based on the information known to the law enforcement officer at the time he acted. (United States v. Gaines (2012) 688 F.3d 170.) As such, officers must provide specific and articulable facts for a reasonable suspicion in believing the person detained engaged in criminal activity for a warrantless seizure to be valid. (In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903, 914.) Once reasonable suspicion is

In short, “Terry v. Ohio” allows a law enforcement officer to conduct a “Frisk” or “Pat Down” of the suspect/s outer clothing for weapons, if that law enforcement officer believes that the suspect/s could be armed with a weapon. However, the

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).

Tiana McCroskey Criminal Procedure Jamal Lopez 04, March 2016 Stop, Question and Frisk policy Stop, question, and frisk is an NYPD policy where a police officer can detain a suspect, question them and frisk them by patting down the suspect’s clothing based off reasonable suspicion. (Washington post).Stop and frisk policy is a controversial issue due to the rise of disagreement with in the public. Are the reforms to stop and frisk policy making New York City dangerous again? In order to answer that question we must first have to analyze the pros and cons of the policy to determine a proper answer for the question. Let’s first take a look at some positive attributes of this policy.

The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures from police officers, unless a search warrant has been allowed by the Court. However, the Supreme Court ruled that unwarranted searches will be acceptable if: the officer reasonably feels the search is necessary for his/her own safety, if probable cause leads the officer to believe a crime has been committed, if the person consents to the search, or if the person has been arrested, and the search is related to the crime. These reasons are arguably fair, as a police officer should be able to act on intuition if he/she feels as though his/her life is in danger or the lives of other. However, this opens up the possibility for racial bias affecting the judgment of police officers,

Another recent court case that remarkably challenges the Fourth Amendment is, Riley v. California. The case covered the right of officers to obtain information from cellular devices. The case ended with the need for warrants to be issued to legally search cellphones. There are court cases that will always go on fighting these rights constantly due to error or sheer ignorance, but the natural rights of citizens

The Verdict discussed how both cases were attempting to suppress evidence from their cell phones which now contain much more information than they once did. Cases like this continue to shape our rights. The fourth amendment is here to protect ourselves from being incriminated. In modern day the fourth amendment is in question due to new technology.

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 is unconstitutional. The clients represents thousands of black and Hispanic New Yorkers who have been stopped for no reason (according to the clients).

Due to the stop and frisk law, police officers are allowed to stop anyone that they choose on the street and search them, but only if they have reasonable suspicion. This law was established in 1968 in the case of Terry v. Ohio, when police was stopping an individual on the street they needed to make it a justified stop and frisk. For example: a suspicious person was walking around in the middle of night ducking and dodging down dark alleyways, the police have a right to stop and frisk this person to see if they are armed and dangerous and to question them. But back to the Terry v. Ohio case, the stop and frisk law has been an effective tool for police officers since 1968 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it.

For example, in certain circumstances where a police officer has a legible belief that a suspect has perpetrated a crime, or if a suspect is a threat to public security a warrantless arrest may be valid (Strasser 1). Meaning, if a police officer has a good reason to believe a suspect has done something illegal, and if they arrest the suspect without a warrant it might be okay. According to Strasser, “A warrantless arrest may be justified where probable cause and urgent need are present prior to the arrest” (1). Therefore, a warrantless arrest might be validated where likely cause and imperative need are present previous to the arrest. An arrest without a warrant may be disregarded, if the police officer fails to demonstrate vital circumstances (Strasser 1).