This means if a person is arrested without a warrant or without probable cause and incriminating evidence is discovered after the arrest, that evidence cannot be used against the arrestee. Automobile Exception: The United States Supreme Court has stated individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles and because vehicles are “readily mobile” it is not practical to require police to obtain a search warrant for a car. If the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed, they can initiate a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion can be nothing more than the driver’s failure to use a turn signal when changing lanes or not wearing a seat belt. If the initial traffic stop is valid, and the police develop additional
- cert was granted ISSUE: - Did the FBI violated Katz 4th Amendment Right? (to privacy) HOLDING: - Yes REASONING: - The phone booth should be considered protected when doors are shut but the 4th amend. protects persons not places from unreasonable intrusion. In a public place, a person can have that reasonable expectation (but isn't protected because of plain view) Since the government was electronically listening and recording the conversation, it is constituted as a search & seizure. Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible.
If someone of authority believes you may have something dangerous or you show signs of something illegal on you or your property such as in a vehicle they can then search your property. Also when being detained they would be authorized to search you and your possessions. The limits of this amendment get complicated with privacy. The biggest limit of this amendment is the fact that it only protects a “legitimate expectation of privacy”. The fourth amendment does not provide any protection for things that are in plain view such as when an officer looks into a car and can see what is sitting in the passenger seat.
The pat down of the driver was very much legal based off of reasonable suspicion of the vehicle’s description. A car fitting a similar sketch was involved in an unsolved crime. According to the Terry v. Ohio case, the pat down of the driver was considered to be legal and is mainly for the protection of the officer because the driver could be armed and dangerous. Terry frisks are basically a pat down of the body and the outer layer of garments for weapons that is justified by an officer’s certainty that a suspect is
Police officer need a warrant to search a person, no matter who he is. I support the first opinion, I believe the police officers are protector of people rights, but sometimes they need to invade certain person’s own right to protect the whole society. Police officer can search without warrant in three cases, “The first, called the “plain view doctrine,” refers to situations in which the police, during the course of legal police business, see something of interest in plain view, for example, if a police officer on duty on the street, and see someone sitting in the car and use illegal drug, he can seize the evidence without the warrant. Second, the police can also legally conduct a warrantless search if you give permission for them to do so. Finally, a police officer can conduct a “search incident to arrest” without a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: a. The most important rule of law is the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized[1] (Constitution, 1789).” b.
I feel that this situation would be considered as larceny. Under the common law, the crime of larceny involves the unlawful taking and carrying away of someone else’s personal property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession (Miller & Jentz, 2008). Basically, larceny is stealing or theft that does not involve any kind of force or fear. Sarah took the computer in this situation to claim it as her own and did not inflict any force or fear into anyone. The second situation states: While passing Makoto’s house one night, Sarah sees Makoto outside with a laptop computer.
(b) Under the “police-created exigency” doctrine, which lower courts have developed as an exception to the exigent circumstances rule, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search when the exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police. The lower courts have not agreed, however, on the test for determining when police impermissibly create an exigency. Pp. 7–8. 2.
By making this exclusionary rule, the court has to take the incentive away so police cannot take a person’s constitutional right’s away. Law enforcement cannot just bust down a person door just because police cannot even search a person car without a search warrant. There is a purpose to this rule and that is to make law enforcement enforce their own rules. The main purpose is to deter police or discourage police from doing illegal searched. The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges.
In my opinion, the rule does not lead to more crime, simply because "There's nothing in the statute that provides for any kind of aggressive action in terms of pursues and confront”. According to republican, Dennis Braxley. The Fla. Stat. § 776.012. Use of force in defense of person A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.