- 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.
U.S. Supreme Court Search and Seizure: Arizona vs. Gant 1) The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures of a person and a person’s property. In order to conduct a search, the police must have probable cause and generally, a search warrant is required in order for the police to search. When law enforcement conducts a search without a warrant, the search is per se unreasonable. This means there is a presumption that the search was unreasonable and the burden is on the government to demonstrate that the search was reasonable and not illegal. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: The rationale behind this exception is that a person who has been arrested may destroy evidence or use some type of concealed weapon against the arresting officer.
Although “ ‘searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable,’ ” Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U. S. 398 , this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment ,” Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U. S. 385 . One such exigency is the need “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Brigham City, supra, at 403. Pp. 5–6. (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.
Strict Liability Essay How Do We Justify The Imposition Of Strict Liability For Some Criminal Offences? In criminal law, strict liability offences are those in which the mens rea does not have to be proven in order for a person to be found guilty provided one or more elements of the actus reus are present. There are two types of strict liability that can be found. The first type of strict liability found in criminal cases is that of absolute liability. So the defendant does not have to have the intention to commit an act or have any knowledge of the circumstances that makes an act a criminal offence.
Finally, a police officer can conduct a “search incident to arrest” without a warrant. This means that during the course of a lawful arrest — one that’s based on probable cause — the police can search the arrestee and the immediate surroundings for weapons or for evidence the police fear might be destroyed.” These indicate that police officer has rights to conduct the search without the warrant in certain situation, it’s for protected the law and the safety of the community also for protects the suspects themselves. (http://www.gasawaylongandfarmer.com/information/criminal-defense-faq/Can-Police-Conduct-a-Search-Without-a-Warrant_AE12.html) There is case called Michigan V. Fisher. In this case a police
Evidence seized by private parties is not excluded from trial if the search was not in the direction of law enforcement officers. If a criminal defendant testifies in his or her own defense, illegally seized evidence may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony. Evidence seized in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights may be used in Grand Jury proceedings and civil proceedings. In a grand jury proceeding, illegally seized evidence may not be used if it was obtained in violation of the federal government. In the case of United States v. Herring, the officer arrested the defendant without a proper arrest warrant.
Disc7 Accounting Black Hat or White Hat Student Name: Institution Name: Abstract A criminal investigation involves seeking, collecting, and gathering evidence for a criminal case. Depending on the depth of the crime committed, it is sometimes necessary to use people convicted of crimes to help convict other people doing similar crimes. The Enron case is one such example of a major accounting fraud which involved using convicts in investigations. Keywords: Accounting fraud, convict A criminal investigation involves seeking, collecting, and gathering evidence for a criminal case. A criminal investigator is the one who looks for evidence to establish whether a crime has taken place (Bratton, William, 2002, p. 24).
Ethical Case Intuitive Level 1. Immediate judgments - The first step in the ethical-decision making model is to recognize the problem. The problem is Kevin was involved in illegal activity. Although it was not his idea, and he was not the one who actually stole the car, it was still illegal and technically he could face consequences as an accomplice if caught and convicted. Despite this my immediate feeling in response to this situation is that at this point I do not report the crime.
The fourth amendment prohibits, "unreasonable searches and seizures", and protects citizens' privacy within reasonable measures. Now, how does this tie into modern technology, and should the use of this information be considered a violation of people's constitutional right to privacy? Police should not be able to obtain information stored by personal devices or their carriers, as the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees privacy to the United States citizens. In that case that the authorities were to use information from a person's personal device without a proper warrant, they would be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment was established in order to protect the privacies of the United States
Criminal Defense Analysis Stephanie Caradine CJA/354 July 18, 2011 Criminal Defense Analysis To define what criminal defense is there should be a clear understanding of what criminal law is before analyzing the various levels of defense. According to Worldwide Legal Directories (Criminal, n.d.) the term criminal law or penal law is defined as the prosecution from high levels toward an individual for an act that has been categorized as an offense. As a group of laws that consists of common and statutory laws, they are distributed according to the crime and sentences involving the illegal offense. When crimes are committed they will be classified by either misdemeanor or felonies based upon the degree of the crime that had been committed and what form of punishment may be granted will differ. After a crime has been committed and the individual who is responsible has been caught, they will begin the process involving “criminal defense.” When an individual breaks the law, there are various forms of defense that he or she may be eligible in using in regard to the charges that are being brought up against them.