The Government Goes Too Far As American citizens, we all have the right to have protection from unlawful searches/seizures and to have privacy. These rights are undoubtedly guaranteed under the 4th Amendment. With the events that took place in the DLK case, the rights of DLK, particularly those protected under the Fourth Amendment, were evidently violated when the law enforcement used heat imaging to see whether or not he was growing marijuana in his own home. According to Document A, what we expect to be private is constitutionally protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. “But what he seeks to keep as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally protected” ~ Justice Potter Stewert (Katz vs. United States).
President wants to implement more strict rules on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are mentally ill with strict background checks. In addition, he emphasizes assault weapons ban. He stated “weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theatre don’t belong on our streets”. Analysis President Obama wants to reinstate the assault weapon ban. He believes that assault weapon should only be used by security officials to protect or nation, and also, availability of assault weapons has given birth to violent crimes.
If DLK had over 100 plants in his house, there is no possible way he could have moved them all before authorities caught him. In document A1, the author states, “The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search was valid because otherwise, Carroll might drive away and the evidence would disappear.” In this case, the search was valid against Carroll because he could have easily driven away with the liquor in his car; therefore, some could argue the officials were in “hot pursuit,” giving them permission to do so. It is physically impossible, not just for DLK, but for any person to transport over 100 marijuana plants without there being sight of
Probable Cause Article Summary In order to issue to a search warrant, a judge must sign the order and authorize and obtain the specifics along with the location. The search warrant is only good for the specified location, so if the warrant specifies the garage at a certain address, authorities cannot search the inside of the home as well. In an article published online regarding the Trayvon Martin case, Reverend Al Sharpton stated he was enforcing the arrest of George Zimmerman regarding the released videos that gave probable cause to arrest him “for obstruction of justice and for filing a false police report if in fact he told police he sustained a broken nose and other injuries” (EurPublisher, 2012). Warrant requirement exceptions can be anything from roadside sobriety checkpoints, which have been court approved but must be done in a fair and organized manner. “For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view.
They proceeded to arrest Mr. Peabody, the judge dismisses the case because the police did not follow the Fourth amendment to get a warrant before they search and seize the owner property. The proper way this should have been handle was to get a warrant first before doing a search and seizure was done. References Criminal Procedure, Law and Practice, Rolando V. DelCarmen, Eighth edition, 2010, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. The Law Dictionary, Wesley Gilmer, Jr., M.S.L.S., J. D. Smith edition 1986, Anderson Publishing
The court will also contemplate other justifying circumstances. The evidence will be thrown out if the officer used intimidation to get the consent to search. In this case, the officer did have reason to believe that the suspect was carrying drugs in his car after overhearing the phone conversation.
In order to conduct a consent search, the law enforment offical's must have the permission of the person whose property is being searched, by granting consent the defendant waivies his or her Fourth Amendment right to unlawful search and seizure. In other words when the defendant gives his or her permission to the police to enter and search, than no search warrant is required. In most cases, the person may refuse to give consent; however, the law enforcement agent does not have to tell the person that consent is voluntary. Should any of the evidence obtained result in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove that the consent search was entirely voluntary and the person granting consent was not coerced. In addition, once a consent search has started, the person whose property is being searched may, at any time, revoke his or her consent.
Essay #1 The article “Kyllo v. United States: Technology v. Individual Privacy” by Thomas D. Colbridge is to inform us about the balance between individuals privacy and the government enforcing laws to give safety to the public. It is about the use of thermal imaging technology by the police in the case of Kyllo which goes against his Fourth Amendment which protects him against unreasonable searches and seizures. Since the search was unreasonable and it was never defined in the constitution, it needs much more interpretation for the case. The Kyllo Case essentially is the use of thermal imaging law enforcement used to find out indoor marijuana growing operations in Kyllo’s property. But in the end when it reached the Supreme Court the third time and was ruled that Kyllo was indeed under the protection of the Fourth Amendment.
Police Report 1 Police Report University of Phoenix Police Report 2 Police Report The Fourth Amendment Right protects all Americans from the police officers or other law officials from searching their home, person or property with having a search warrant. Police Officers are able to search a person or their belonging when there is probable cause such as a person covered in bloody running away from an individual lying out on the sidewalk. The court case Minnesota v. Riff made information that was obtain by officer in an unlawful search to be inadmissible during any court proceedings. The effective communication was challenged in this court case because each and every one of the witnesses had a different testimony that place the
He believes the bill goes too far with the phrase, “no person shall be…discriminated against or denied any right or privilege” (Lee) He uses the example of an employer being sued for requiring drug tests at work. He does however believe “a bill that simply allows people to cultivate and smoke marijuana themselves…would be worth considering.” (McClintock) Ben Emery agrees with Mr. McClintock saying he would vote “no” on Prop 19. He agrees with McClintock in, but he believes decriminalization of marijuana would help the whole criminal system freeing up money for other projects. (emery) Clint Curtis is the only candidate who supports “Yes” on Proposition 19. He recognizes the savings from the criminal system as does Emery, but he is cautious about the possible dangers of citizens driving under the influence, being that there is no test for marijuana relative to