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.
Exclusionary Rule Search and seizures are protected under the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Officer that go beyond the law and obtain evidence without a warrant are in breach of a person’s fourth amendment right. The evidence that is obtained is not admissible in court and fall under the exclusionary rule. This paper will discuss the benefits of the exclusionary rule, as well as alternative remedies to the rule. Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement.
David Gray CJUS 200 Application Essay 2-15-14 Can you seize the marijuana plants at that time? If yes, what is your legal justification for doing so? If no, what legally prohibits you from doing so? No, as a police officer you would not be able to seize the marijuana plants at this time, by doing so you would be violating the rights of the citizens of the house that was entered due to the noise ordinance. Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”.
As explained above, the right to privacy is a universally recognized right. NSA surveillance, collection of personal details may be going against the conventional grain of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The recent court rulings on the issue have not quite settled on a single premise. Two rulings of two courts in America have actually arrived at two different decisions citing two distinct reasoning. In Clayman vs Obama, Judge Richard echoed that surveillance and collection of telephony data by NSA without the knowledge of the general public was against the spirit of the constitution of America.
Investigation: A person can have reasonable privacy even in a public place. In this case, the person utilizing the phone booth would expect reasonable privacy because they would not think that their conversation would be recorded regardless of the conversations that took place. Under the Fourth Amendment, the taping of the phone conversations constitutes the search even though the search was achieved without a warrant. Conclusion: The evidence such as the tapes were inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the conviction was overturned.
Likening such statements to fraud, defamation, or lies to government agencies, all of which can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment, the dissenters argued that the government should have a free hand to prosecute those who lie about having earned military honors. The dissenters recognized that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech, but argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because the subject matter of the lies does not relate to any protected
Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. Thus, the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future (Arizona v. Evans, 1996). In this case, no warrant was obtained and, given the improper consent to search, the motion to exclude the physical evidence filed by William Ellis’s attorney would in all likelihood be granted. In sum, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of a “murder scene” exception to the warrant requirement on three separate occasions spread out over a twenty year period. In each instance, the Court has emphatically rejected the notion that such an exception exists.
United States, held a device not in public use to examine what would otherwise be hidden is a search, thus presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Warrantless searches: Supreme Court has held that constitutional warrantless searches include: -Area within an arrestee’s immediate control -Premises police enter in hot pursuit of an armed suspect -Stop-and-frisk searches for weapons -Inventory searches of property (e.g., briefcase, automobile) in an arrestee’s possession -Consensual searches The exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence seized in an illegal search in a subsequent trial of the defendant. The Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment provides a privilege or protection against compelled testimonial self-incrimination -Practical meaning: a person may remain silent if making a statement would assist the government in prosecuting the person - Miranda warnings Safe guard the right -Also prohibits prosecutorial comments at trial about the defendant’s failure to testify. Double jeopardy
First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES” ( CORNELL, 2013, P.1) “First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”—Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition (First Amendment,
) What does the Constitution say about the right to bear arms? On the second amendment which guarantees to citizens the right to bear arms, if this bill did not exist , it would mean that people would not be able to keep firearms in their homes and be more safe in case of robbery or intrusion inside their properties and also make people feel more protected from people that want to harm their family or steal their belongings. 2) What is the Supreme Court's position on the Second amendment? The second amendment states: "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed ". The meaning of this sentence is not self-evidence, and has given rise to much commentary but