S. V. Taylor Case Study

They have also said that it is reasonable for any officer to do an immediate area search of where that individual is to make sure that they can not grab anything for a weapon like for example a knife. The Supreme Court clearly notes in its opinion that such searches have to happen in the immediate area of arrest and any such search outside that area must be made with a search warrant. In Chimel case the officers could have patted down Chimel and then done a search of the immediate area to make sure that no weapons were hiding around. But once they began looking all around the house that requires a search warrant. The Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court’s

In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

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

Question 2 In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree Mapp was at the center of an investigation regarding a search for a potential bombing suspect. The bombing suspect was thought to be residing in Dollree Mapp’s residence. The police originally approached Mapp’s residence and requested permission to search the residence for the bombing suspect, equipment, and gambling equipment. Mapp consulted her attorney, and declined to allow the officers to enter the residence without a search warrant.

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. The issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

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).

Mapp vs. Ohio On June 19, 1961, the Mapp v. Ohio case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. The situation addressed in court was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that people have the right to be secure in their houses, and it forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the case of Riley V. California, Mr. Riley was stopped on a traffic violation, which led to his arrest on weapons charges. The officer searching Riley’s incident to arrest seized a cell phone form Riley’s possession. There was information on the phone and repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. Hours later a gang detective examined the phone’s digital contents and based in part on photographs and videos found, the State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. They sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership.

Due to cases such as Terry v Ohio and Mapp v Ohio, when police found criminating evidence through an illegal search or obtained proof of a crime through an illegal entry of the home, according to the Supreme Court, this evidence cannot be brought to trial. The Terry v Ohio case decided 8-1 on the grounds of the officer having “a hunch” that Terry had a weapon, this was ruled unconstitutional. Mapp v Ohio was decided 6-3 with the premise “[The Supreme Court] declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."” (Oyez-Mapp). The punishment of police officers and law enforcement has ranged from lawsuits by the victim, consent decrees, citizen review boards, or, rarely, prosecuting the officer (England).

Colorado and Unreasonable Search and Seizure in California, attorney Robert M. Desky states, “The United States Supreme Court, in Wolf v. Colorado, ' held for the first time that "the security of one 's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police-which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment,” Desky continues, “But at the same time the Court held that the states need not observe the federal rule which excludes from criminal prosecutions evidence obtained by illegal search. The majority opinion explained away the federal exclusionary rule as "judicial implication" based upon the Fourth Amendment, while Justice Black, in a concurring opinion, characterized the rule as a "judicially created rule of evidence," a description which seems more consistent with the Court 's suggestion that it could be changed by Congress.” According to Mr. Desky’s statement, the court believed that the exclusionary rule, which determines whether or not evidence is excluded from a trial, was left only up to the federal government and not the states. Therefore the state courts could not exclude any illegal evidence from a

An officer may only be allowed to search a person 's personal belongings if their reasoning is associated with a lawful arrest and if they have a probable cause to search (Matthews). After it being a huge deal in New York, other cities and states began embracing the use of stop-and-frisk as it began growing around the United States. In the 1950s police officials in other cities took up, and expanded, the stop-and-search tactics by using the LAPD to embrace the theory of crime

In a six to three decision the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the search of the purse leading to the discovery of marijuana was legal. Mr. Choplick’s discovery of wrapping paper associated with the use of marijuana justified allowed for a reasonable thorough search. This meant that the discovery of the marijuana is allowed to be used as evidence against T.L.O. The reason why Mr. Choplick had a reason to open her purse and initially search for the cigarettes is because of in loco parentis. “In loco parentis is a legal doctrine describing a relationship similar to that of a parent to a child. It refers to an individual who assumes parental status and responsibilities for another individual, usually a young person, without

In document A “The Supreme Court rule that the warrantless search was valid because otherwise, Carrol might drive away and the evidence would disappear. In this case,the warrantless search was found to be constitutional. ”However In this case the warrantless search was not constitutional because the evidence was not disappearing. DLK was growing more than 100 marijuana plants meaning he had a sizable business, and he would most likely grow more after selling them.

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.

This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all