Wendell Clayton 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

Case: Horton v. California Citation: 496 U.S. 128 (1990) Year Decided: 1990 Facts: After obtaining a warrant for stolen items from an armed robbery, a California police officer searched petitioner Horton’s home. The officer had described both the weapons used and property stolen in the affidavit for the search warrant, but the Magistrate issuing the warrant only authorized a search for the stolen property. Even though the police did not discover the stolen property, weapons matching the officer’s description were found in plain view and seized. Horton ended up being convicted of armed robbery after a motion to suppress the seized evidence was denied by the trial court.

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.).

This applies to Sam Wardlow’s situation in which evidence was founded illegally without a proper search warrant. Also, the weapon that was found in Sam’s bag does not relate to any prior crime that may connect him to. This is not in anyway, allowed for officer Nolan to have even stopped Mr.Wardlow. Possibly, if Sam was connected to a crime beforehand and if the officers did have a proper search warrant. Then there is no way Sam’s rights were violated.

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

A review of the events involving the North Charleston, S. Carolina Whitlee Jones murder case as it applies to the Tennessee “stand your ground” statute brings several factors into question. As indicated in the article, South Carolina’s law as does Tennessee’s states that a person having reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm can use deadly force on the unlawful intruder. However, this does not apply to a lawful resident or a person who has a legal right to be in the dwelling, business, or auto (Knapp, 2014). As Jones indicates she removes herself from the danger on several occasions, yet she continues to return, placing herself once again in position to receive serious injury or death from her boyfriend who is legally occupying the

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.

Due to the police “brotherhood” they took the situation lightly and turned it into a mess. No proper questioning or evidence was collected due this facet. A major factor was that Officer Banks was treated has if he was innocent a hundred and ten percent. The sheriff’s department should have questioned him and detained him like any other case.

This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.

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).

IV, the police officers executed an unlawful search of Mr. Clavel’s home when they knocked at the door, shouted “police, open up,” waited 15 seconds and forcibly entered the premises by kicking the door open. The plain clothed officers entered the premises without announcing their purpose and without providing Mr. Clavel with ample time to voluntarily open his door and surrender the premises for search. Facts Our client Mr. Clavel requests to suppress the evidence found in the potential unlawful search of his residence.

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,

There does not have to be proven evidence for the arrest. If the person is under suspicion of being armed and dangerous, their outer garments may be searched. 17. What is meant by “totality of the circumstances.” What is it used for?

“What constitutes an “unreasonable” search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment in the context of a Stop-and-Frisk was decided by the Supreme Court in its 1968 Terry v. Ohio ruling. ” There is no telling what the officer 's count as reasonable and suspicious sometimes it mainly deals with the color of their

There is a misunderstanding with how police deal with intense situations. The public don’t understand that we only have a split second to make a decision in an intense situation like this. The media uses negative news to attract more attention. People don’t get all the facts, they only know one side of the story. He gives the example of the incident