Summary: The Case Of Freemont Weeks V. United States

In Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 PA. 441 (1968), on November 16, 1964, at about 11:30 a.m. four detectives went to appellant 's home with a body warrant for appellant and a search warrant for the premises. The complaint for the search warrant recited that the affiant, Detective John McCrory, deposed that there was probable cause to believe that certain books, papers, and other items used for the purpose of a lottery were in the possession of Henderson Newman at or near 721 West Mary Street. They forcefully entered the appellant 's home without announcement or purpose. The court held that, the forcible entry without announcement of purpose violates the Fourth Amendment. The fruits of an illegal search are inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio,

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.

1. Riley vs California Riley vs California is the significant and most popular case which is related to Fourth Amendment decisions in recent history. The court in this case gave ruling and decision related to “search incident to arrest” of cell phone which the police found with the arrestee at the crime location. Different court has different decision based on different point of view. There was unanimous opinion that police should examine the arrestee’s cellphone as part of search incident to arrest.

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.

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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the District Court and maintained that the waiver was valid. The case then reached the Supreme Court as he felt his rights protected by Fifth Amendment of the United States were

Charlie Avery Mr. Kotowski U.S. History 17 February, 2015 Riley vs. California Research Paper The Riley versus California case is one of the most recent Supreme Court proceedings dealing with the Fourth Amendment. The case between David Leon Riley and the State of California was fought over whether police should be able to search cell phones without a warrant when they are apprehending a suspect. The Supreme Court had the Job of discovering if Riley’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches was violated (EPIC, “Riley v. California”). The judges, headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts had a very difficult decision to make, as they had to apply an Amendment from 1789 to the modern, digital age, where people store so

It was a very small gesture that led to the Supreme Court case, which changed how the police are able to do their job. Mapp v. Ohio was a case in which the United States had to go against first judgement and question if the decision they made in the first place was a smart one. By ruling in favor of Dolly Mapp the supreme court decided that you need to have a valid search warrant which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. On May 23, 1957 three police officers showed up at Dolly Mapps house to investigate a recent bombing.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The warrantless search of Greenwood’s garbage bags would violate the Fourth Amendment only if Greenwood showed a subjective expectation of privacy of the garbage and society accepts it as objectively reasonable. The U.S Supreme Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets where animals, children, scavengers, and the public have access to it. Criminal activity that can be seen by any member of the public cannot be reasonably expected to be ignored by the police.

The Olmstead court did not make a similar distinction since the majority rejected the penetration rule. The Fourth Amendment was interpreted as protects against unreasonable search and seizures in protected areas and tangible items. Which would have led to wiretapping being

The Fourth Amendment the Search and Seizure amendment was first passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 (National Constitution Center) that states the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (National Constitution Center). For the first one hundred years after this amendment was This amendment of the Constitution has been used by both civilians and governmental officials as proof of why they believe an incident that occurred was fair, or unfair. However, there have been times when deciding the fairness or unfairness has not been crystal clear. For instance, the case of Tennessee v. Garner that was first argued on October 30, 1984, and later decided upon on March

Unreasonable search and seizure is an asset in this country. It is an asset in this country because the police have to have rules also. If America did away with the fourth Amendment there would not be any crime because the police will be able to arrest anyone without probable cause. The police would have such much power that people will be afraid to even drive through a stop sign.

An incident in a court case where race, white privilege and rape myths are at play is the case of R.v. Rhodes (Busby, 2014,p.257-293). In this case, Rhodes was convicted of sexually assaulting C.P, an Indigenous woman half his size and sixteen years younger, in the woods off a secluded highway in Manitoba (Busby, 2014,p.257-293). C.P’s stated that she feared for her life and that she objected vaginal penetration but Rhodes continued to penetrate her in various ways without taking any steps to reassert her consent (Busby, 2014,p.257-293). In court, the judge stated that the complainant and her friend were a “ provocation” and “enticement” to the act (Busby, 2014,p.257-293).

Facts A lady had an abortion performed through back alley means, and had medical complications that resulted in her being in the hospital and questioned by police. She gave them the name of the petitioner, Julius Wolf. The police then followed up on the lead and entered his office without a search warrant and seized items as evidence, one of which was a list of patients. The police then used that evidence to gather more testimony against Wolf.

In Wolf vs. Colorado the Supreme Court had decided that it did not. Illegally obtained evidence could be used in trials because the 4th amendment did not apply to states. The principle became known as the exclusionary