Maryland Vs Pringle Case Study

In this case Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against the vitric of the lower courts on a 5 to 4 vote. The questions that need to be answered in this case, in my opinion serve a bigger purpose then the case at hand. The case itself is about a man named Danny Kyllo who was growing marijuana plants inside his home illegally. An officer of the U.S Interior Department got a tip that this man was illegally growing plants inside his home and went to investigate this. Obviously a tip from an unknown is not enough information to get a warrant to search the man’s property.

Facts: Law enforcement gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause that Payton murdered a gas station employee. Without an arrest warrant, agents entered the suspect’s home with force to make an arrest. Payton was not home at the time of the entry but in plain view officers found a shell casing that was used for evidence. Issue: Is it unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Clause for law enforcement to enter a home without an arrest warrant or search warrant

Facts: Police pull over a car with Joseph Pringle and two other people in the car, and Pringle was in the front seat of the car, when law enforcement officials search the car. Police officers discover in the car baggies of cocaine in the back seat of the car and $763 in the compartment up front. None of the three people in the car would confess to whom the drug belonged to and so all of them were arrested. When arriving at the police station Pringle admitted that the cocaine belong to him and then he was charged with intent to sell and possession of cocaine. Pringle then stated that there was no probable cause to arrest him, and the Maryland court system stated there was probable cause and proceed to convict him (Maryland v Pringle 540 U.S.

The Fourth Amendment draws a line at the entrance of a home. In order for an officer to enter into a home, they must first obtain a warrant. While this is the easiest way to enter into a home, there are exceptions to the necessity of a warrant. An officer does not need a warrant when there is consent, it involves a vehicle, at incident to arrest, containers, or it is an emergency. This case is considered an emergency.

The California Court of Appeal later affirmed the convictions and denied the suppression of evidence on the basis of California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Diaz. 3. Issue: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Riley involves whether police officers can search a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant during an arrest. In Riley v. California, the lower court ruled that a police officer not only can seize and secure a suspect’s cell phone during an arrest, but they can also search the contents of that phone without a warrant or probable cause.

Warrantless searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable, absent an established exception. (Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366.) Officers may temporarily detain an individual to conduct an investigatory stop for the purposes of investigating a criminal offense without a warrant. (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 27.) Nonetheless, a warrantless investigatory stop constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.

At times the individual can go free due to the police not following correct procedures when obtaining evidence. If the court did allow illegally obtained evidence to be used within the court, then the Fourth Amendment would hold no power (Ingram, 2009). However, some argue that evidence should be able to be used against the accused if the accused can file a suit against the law enforcement official who violated their rights in the first place (Ingram, 2009). This is an interesting point and I do not personally agree with it.

1. The Fourth Amendment protects the fundamental of search and seizure. Which in this case, discusses the importance of obtaining physical evidence and how it is used. In other words, the Fourth Amendment can be violated if the evidence gathered has been obtained unreasonably.

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

The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.

The Fourth Amendment affirms that "people are secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, no Warrants shall issue, describe the place to search, and the persons or things to be seized. " There should be a warrant for everything if what a person is being charged for is risking their rights as a U.S citizen. For example the privacy of a citizen is safe under the Fourth Amendment. Second, the property belonging to U.S citizens is secure from search and seizure without a warrant. Third, due to the Fourth Amendment, any citizen is safe from unfair arrests.

State v. Deanna Conspiracy Oral or implied agreement between two or more to commit an unlawful act Alma found Deanna searching in the managers office. Deanna told Alma that she was looking for keys to the safe because she was looking for papers in the safe. Alma told her she didn’t believe her and that she would keep watch for her. Her actions indicate they are both aware and agree that Deanna is going to commit a crime.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect