Chrisman V. Supreme Court Case Analysis

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

1. What constitutional rights were violated? How were they violated? Breaking and entering, illegal search, and questioning a suspect without informing him of his rights were the constitutional rights violated in this scenario. Arnie and the officer entered into the suspects home without a warrant or probable cause and they then proceeded to search his house illegal and used the evidence in the house to question him without using informing him of his rights.

Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified.

Riley moved to suppress all the evidence the officers had obtained during the search of his cell phone on the grounds that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights 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 of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be

When Weeks was arrested, police officers entered his home without a warrant by using a key and began searching it for evidence. The officers then turned over evidence to the U.S. Marshals that was used to get a conviction. Weeks appealed the conviction which eventually came to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the search violated Weeks rights under the 4th Amendment. This ruling also prevented local police officers from securing evidence by ways that are prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to federal investigators.

Rahman, broken into the location and loudly pounded on plaintiff’s door. Plaintiff states he opened the door and tightly handcuffed. Plaintiff states he was arrested and no drugs were recovered in plaintiff’s apartment. • Department records show that plaintiff was arrested on March 8, 2013 for criminal possession of a controlled substance. Det.

United States v. Mark James Knights, 219 F. 3d 1138 Issue: The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents Fourth Amendment rights were infringed upon when law enforcement searched his home without a warrant. Even though respondent agreed to the terms of probation following release, which included searches of his person or premises with or without a warrant (The United States Department of Justice, 2014). Rule: The rule of law in regards to Knights probation conditions following release state that Knights would “submit his person, property, residence, vehicle, personal effects, to be searched at any time, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer” (Karagiozis et al., 2005 p. 223).

Unspoken: Miranda; More Than Words 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…” In Johnson v. United States (1948), officers smelled burning opium from the window of a hotel, the officers entered without warning, found the only occupant and had him persecuted. Though the man had committed the crime, he did not agree that the officers enter his hotel room or go through his belongings. Clearly this is a huge invasion of privacy and should be confronted by allowing one to know their right to decline. On that note, if there is any suspicion that narcotics are involved in a certain case there should be consequences,

The analysis of whether the scope of the search here was permissible under that standard is straightforward. Indeed, the majority does not dispute that "general background possibilities" establish that students conceal contraband in their underwear. It acknowledges that school officials had reasonable suspicion to look in Redding 's backpack and outer clothing because if "Wilson 's reasonable suspicion of pill distribution were not understood to support searches of outer clothes and backpack, it would not justify

A student “TLO” was caught smoking cigarettes in school, she was confronted by the school’s vice principal, who forced the student to hand over her purse. The vice principal then searched her purse, found drug paraphernalia and called the police; the student was eventually charged with multiple crimes and expelled from the school. Her lawyer argued that the evidence should not have been admissible in court because it violated the student 's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In a New Jersey bathroom a teacher found two girls in the bathroom and immediately took them to the principal 's office. The one girl confessed of smoking but TLO,the other girl, wouldn’t admit to it. The principal demanded to search her purse. In the purse he found evidence that she was also dealing marijuana at school. The principal found a wad of money in the girl 's purse.

Robinette 519 U.S. 33 (1996) case, the court ruled that the fourth amendment search to valid consent is that the consent be voluntary and voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances. The issue with Officer Gung Ho is that he was in a police uniform, yelling for Dan to stop, this alone can be an intimidation factor, and now Ho is asking to search Dan’s bag. Dan may not know he can refuse the right for Officer Ho to search his bag because the officer does not have probable cause to search his bag in the first place. Therefore any evidence found in the bag could be suppressed in court and in the violation on his fourth amendment

As illegal drug use have become a nationwide problem, public employers, like fire departments, are testing employees for illegal drug use. Fire departments want to keep a drug free environment but they must be aware of the legal aspects that limit their power to test for illegal drugs. In The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the privacy of individuals against random and unreasonable intrusions by the government. As such, fire departments must only test employees for drug use in compliance with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

AHD Wearrien told the residents that he notice a smell of marijuana coming from this room. All four residents replied, “they didn’t smoke marijuana” AHD Wearrien informed all four students because of the smell he has to call University Police, so he asked them again, “were you all smoking marijuana?”. Resident Burket admitted that they were smoking marijuana. AHD Wearrien asked if there was any marijuana left in the room, and all four residents replied no. Resident Florez stated to AHD Wearrien “you can’t just give us a warning,” AHD Wearrien responded unfortunately, no, I have document this.

Police found graffiti on one of the columns between the soccer stadium and track on Thursday, Oct. 15, at 4:05 a.m., Campus Police reported. The markings were done using red spray paint. No other graffiti was found in the area, police said. An Eickhoff worker's car was damaged sometime between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 14, Campus Police said.