After this Harrison verbally agreed to let the investigators search his apartment. During the search a gun was found hidden under a sink. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. The Exclusionary Rule prevents the court from using any evidence collected after an unreasonable search and seizure.
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. The Supreme Court of the United States articulated this rule in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The Court held it was reasonable for law enforcement to search an arrestee for evidence or weapons. In order for a search incident to arrest to be lawful, the arrest itself must be lawful. 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.
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.
- 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.
Case Citation: United States v. Leon et al., 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Parties: Alberto Antonio Leon et al. / Respondents United States / Petitioner Facts: After receiving unproven information from a confidential informant, the Burbank police began an investigation by surveillance of the Respondents at their residence for drug use. A check of one of the individuals, Richardo Del Castillo, led officers to Respondent Alberto Leon who had prior arrests for drug charges. A search warrant was issued by a State Superior Judge to search the Respondent’s residence whereby a large quantity of drugs was found.
The amendment I chose to cover is the Fourth Amendment which states, “ 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.” This amendment essentially stops anyone of authority from unwarranted confiscation or even the unwarranted search through private areas such as homes or vehicles for anything at all. Without probable cause or warrant there is never a circumstance where your possessions should be looked through or seized. This amendment is very important because it goes hand in hand with the innocent until proven guilty. The only way around this is probable cause and that is where it gets tricky. 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.
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. The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. According to http://criminal.findlaw.com/, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or
“Home Searches under the 4th Amendment” The 4th Amendment is “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.” The following article describes the “only three ways into a home: Consent; Exigency; Warrant.” There have been many court cases involving the Consent of search and seizures, including Bumper v. No. Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) and Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990). These cases explain the proper methods in the consent of a search and seizure under the 4th amendment. Landlords cannot consent to searches if they are renting a room or dwelling to another person. The persons being searched can limit the area the police are allowed to search, they can also withdraw their consent at any moment during the search.
Imagine a society where the rights of individuals are not protected. A law enforcement agency can search a person’s telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. If they suspect any terrorism-related acts, they can detain anyone indefinitely. This is Patriot Act. Even though advocates claim that the Patriot Act helps to protect the national security, the Patriot Act is unjust.
Clarence S. Illario Rights to be Secure in our Homes 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. – Fourth Amendment My cousin who’s a sworn peace officer for the city of Provo assigned to the Patrol Division and has experience dealing with people and their rights on a day to day basis. He said crimes are mostly committed behind closed doors and in their homes. Governments have their duty and obligations to the citizens to provide justice and punish