If an individual wants to sue regarding a supposed Fourth Amendment violation, they must have a standing (Fourth Amendment, 2013). A standing requires that there is a legitimate expectation of privacy at the location where the search took place (Fourth Amendment, 2013). To be considered a legitimate expectation of privacy it must pass two tests of subjective and objective reasonableness (Fourth Amendment, 2013). The subjective test requires that the individual truly did expect privacy and the objective test requires that a reasonable person in a similar or the same situation would expect privacy as well (Fourth Amendment, 2013). Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Fourth Amendment’s stipulations contrary to the states and the federal government (Fourth Amendment, 2013).Generally, courts will count evidence illegally obtained through unlawful searches and seizures as inadmissible (Fourth Amendment, 2013).
United States, 1932. It states basically that a person cannot be tried for lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence in subsequent trials. A person can be tried on lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence if the crimes are tried together in one trial. This does not constitute double jeopardy because the defendant is not tried twice using the same evidence. The Blockburger test, in the Court's words is this, "The test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does
It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). If evidence falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of “fruit of the poisonous tree” (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 1920). The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits.
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”. Based on your observation of the marijuana plants, do you need a search warrant to enter and search the house and the resident? If yes, what is the basis for this legal requirement? If no, what is the justification for this exception to the search warrant requirement? Yes, from my observation of the marijuana plants you would need a search warrant to enter and search the house and the resident, but in saying that you would need probable cause, which refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search or seize property relating to an alleged crime to enter the house, so in this case the citizens are breaking the law due to growing illegal drugs.
Understanding Search and Seizure Ann Pierce AIU Online Abstract What are the guidelines for search and seizure? When is it ok to not have a warrant to search? This paper will look at what is required to get a warrant, when one is needed or not needed, and some of the types of searches performed by police. Understanding Search and Seizure 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. The fourth amendment is about privacy.
Define the following terms and/or any requirements/tests/applications that pertain to them: Plain View: 1. Plain view is any illegal item that is within the sight of an officer. __ Anything that in plain view of an officer can be seized without a warrant and won’t intrude on anybodies fourth amendment rights.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Horton v. California was the leading case on the plain view doctrine. This case states that if an officer finds any evidence in plain view the find has to be completely accidental.
In U.S. v. Ursery (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court held that forfeiture in addition to criminal punishment did not violate _________. In a search incident to a lawful arrest, officers may search the area within the arrestee's area of _________ control. In Bond v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court held that manipulating or squeezing a suspect's opaque. soft luggage was a Fourth Amendment
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
Explanation Trespass to the person takes three forms: assault, battery and false imprisonment and they carry the same characteristics as ‘Trespass’ in which they must be committed intentionally, cause direct harm and are actionable per se without proof of damage. The rationale for damage was illustrated in the case of John Lewis & Co Ltd V Tims 1952. This case related to false imprisonment, Lord Porter stated that when “the liberty of the subject is at stake questions as to the damage sustained become of little importance”. Lord Porter was basically saying that it doesn’t matter what damage occurred, the main fact is that a person’s liberty of free movement had been wrongfully removed. Differences from the tort of negligence There is also a need to distinguish intention from negligence which is an important factor in Bert’s case.