Joe Dullard Case Study

1275 Words6 Pages
The second issue is whether Joe Dullard's Fourth amendment right was violated. The IV 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.” In order to sue regarding an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the plaintiff must have a legitimate expectation of privacy at the searched location. This expectation must meet both the subjective and objective tests of reasonableness. The subjective test requires the plaintiff to genuinely expect privacy, and the…show more content…
In order to conduct a consent search, the law enforment offical's must have the permission of the person whose property is being searched, by granting consent the defendant waivies his or her Fourth Amendment right to unlawful search and seizure. In other words when the defendant gives his or her permission to the police to enter and search, than no search warrant is required. In most cases, the person may refuse to give consent; however, the law enforcement agent does not have to tell the person that consent is voluntary. Should any of the evidence obtained result in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove that the consent search was entirely voluntary and the person granting consent was not coerced. In addition, once a consent search has started, the person whose property is being searched may, at any time, revoke his or her consent. Consent may be revoked by comments or actions. Withdrawal of consent must be clearly stated, expressing dislike or impatience is not enough to revoke…show more content…
After Joe told the police they were passing his store, on Hot Goods Avenue. They pulled the car over and asked Joe if they could have a look around. Joe voluntarily consented to the search by saying “Yes, go ahead look around. I have nothing to hide.” Furthermore Joe provided the keys for officer's to obtain entrance to the store, because Joe voluntarily gave his consent to search the store, he waved his fourth amendment right, to unlawful search and seizers. As a result the search of Joe's store was not a violation of Joe's fourth amendment right because he consented to search. The police didn't need a warrant to seize the child pronography from the store because Joe Dullard consented to the search of his store. Which means the police had a legitimate right to be there, and because of the plain view rule, the police can seize any evidentary items of criminal activity if they are in plain view. In this case, Joe left the child pronography laying out on the counter just in side the door, therefore it was within plain view from where the police had a legitimate right to be. As a result the search and seizer was legal, because of the plain view

More about Joe Dullard Case Study

Open Document