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.
The Fourth Amendment allows the people certain protections, which allows a 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.” (Find Law. Fourth Amendment) So before an officer can search you, or your home they must have probable cause and have a warrant in hand or risk any evidence being collected useless during trial. The Fifth Amendment allows helps protect the person being arrested by allowing them to remain silent, in return protecting them from incriminating themselves. When being arrested, by law the officer reads the person their Miranda Rights, which includes remaining silent, contacting or providing a lawyer, and also protecting from being tried twice for the same crime which comes under the protection of Due Process. The Sixth Amendment allows the right to a speedy and public trial allowing them to stand trial in the district they committed the crime and allowing confrontation from witnesses and those who could help assist the defense.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution involving the clause of double jeopardy states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” This statement gives no right to the government to prosecute or punish a criminal for the same offense. Going through trial in a case is not only financially straining for both the court and the individual but also emotionally. There are three conditions necessary for a defendant to have protection under double jeopardy against a second prosecution. The earlier prosecution must progress to the point of jeopardy attachment. Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense.
The Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule to prevent police misconduct. When a police officer is in violation of an individual’s fourth amendment right which is the right to be free from illegal search and seizure, the evidence found during that illegal act is kept out of federal court. This would have been helpful during the OJ Simpson trial. The exclusionary rule not only has three elements to it but it has a purpose for it too. With this are the three elements which are as follows.
It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),
During another search, police found even more evidence. Procedural History: The case was Issues: Issue 1: Whether the exclusionary rule applies in this case. The rule forbids using illegally obtained evidence in court unless it was an emergency circumstance. However, the police stated there were exigent circumstances that surpassed the need for a warrant. At the same time under the police-created exigency doctrine, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search if the circumstances were created by the police [ii].
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution According to Tom Head’s Civil Liberties, and the Fifth Amendment, a person cannot be held for questions in a capital crime unless an indictment has been issued by a Grand Jury. The military; however, have their own set of rules for their soldiers. Another right is that no one should be tried for the same crime twice, which is called double jeopardy. Also a defendant cannot be forced to testify against his or himself because he or she may incriminate him or herself. The Fifth Amendment also states the no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without Due Process of Law.
Warrantless Searches Amber Johnson Rasmussen College Author Note This written assignment is being submitted on February 21, 2014, for Patty Laney’s J100 Introduction to Criminal Justice course. Warrantless Searches 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. In some cases, a search can be reasonable — and thus allowed under the Fourth Amendment-even if the police don't have a warrant. https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/warrantless Exigent circumstances-
-Courts narrowly interpret criminal statutes. Constitutional Limitations: -Government may not enact an Ex post facto (After the fact) Law.Thus a person cannot be charged with a crime for an act that when committed was not a crime. -Constitutionally
Drug testing innocent welfare recipients violates a person’s rights under the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment 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.” (U.S Congress.) The fact that someone receives benefits from the state in no way, shape, or form is probable cause that they have a drug addiction! Individualized suspicion is necessary to perform a search, and states may and do impose drug testing requirements on individuals who have been identified as substance