McKenzie Pennington Mrs. Vonnegut Evidence and Procedure U.S. Vs Harrison US Vs. Harrison In this case the defendant, Johnny James Harrison was being watched on surveillance by agent Brenneman because of suspicion of drugs and firearms. During his surveillance on the defendant the agent did not see any evidence of illegal activity so he decided to “knock and talk”. A knock and talk procedure is a tactic used by one or two police officers to confront a person about the allegations that they were accused of when there is no probable cause to get a search warrant. Sometimes a knock and talk will result in the police asking to search with verbal consent from the owner. In this case Agent Brenneman knocked on Harrison’s door and told him the police had received an anonymous tip that there were bombs and drugs in his apartment.
Plain View/Open Fields Case Study Derrik Green ADJ/275 1/22/2012 Aaliyah Muhammad Plain View/Open Fields Case Study The U.S. Constitution presents individuals the right of freedom from unfavorable seizure and search under the fourth amendment. Investigations are described as a governmental invasion of a place in which an individual carries a sensible as well as a justifiable expectation of solitude. The exercise of governmental command over a person or a thing is called a seizure. Under the fourth amendment the things that will be acceptable will rely only on the situation. There are two types of search and seizure, one would be when the government will acquire a warrant permitting the measures, and the second are the ones justifiable with no warrant.
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
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.
The trial judge granted the motion quashed the information which means to nullify, void, or delcare invalid. Both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. Reading further you learn that the reason the motion was granted was because the police detained Summers OUTSIDE of his home while searching the premises. Fourth Amedment right states that the person being detained has the right to be present while the search is being done for reasons such as to make sure that evidence isn't being planted and the scene isn't being staged. He was escorted off the premises while the search was done, and he as well was searched off the premises.
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.
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation In the 18th century the exclusionary rule under common law did not allow coerced confessions of defendants to be admitted in trial courts. It did not protect defendants from evidence that government officials seized during illegal searches from trials. Weeks v. United States (1914) held that the exclusionary rule was a part of the Fourth Amendment, and any illegally seized evidence cannot be used against the defendant. The decision made the exclusionary rule a constitutional requirement, but it did not bind states. Incorporating the rule to the state level was initiated in 1961 by way of the opinion of Mapp v. Ohio.
The police searched her residence but did not find the bombing suspect.However the police did find obscene materials in the house, and Miss Mapp was placed under arrest. Miss Mapp was found guilty and convicted for the illegal materials found in her residence. All evidence found at Miss Mapp’s residence was in violation of the fourth amendment (no unlawful search and seizures) because they did not have a real search warrant.The police, who possessed no warrant to search Mapp's property had acted unlawfully. Any incriminating evidence found during the search should, therefore, be thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. If the 4th Amendment did not limit the prerogatives of police on the local and State level, local law enforcement would have a mandate to search wherever, whenever, and whomever they pleased.
The LAPD violated the 4th Amendment when they searched O.J’s house without a search warrant. People believed that they did this in order to take action immediately and plant evidence which would help convict O.J. Mark Fuhrman, the head detective at LAPD in charge of the investigation, was questioned about the planting of evidence at O.J’s residence, pleading the 5th Amendment. In other words, he refused to respond to the questions given to him and chose to exercise his constitutional right to not speak. As an addition to O.J’s defense, Simpson's attorneys questioned Fuhrman about his alleged prior use of racist terms.