Despite what the ACLU thinks that obtaining personal records is unconstitutional, it allows the government to get hold of certain records, if needed, to aid in an investigation. Investigators may need to examine business records in order to solve certain crimes. The ACLU says that this violates the First and Fourth Amendment by infringing upon freedom of speech and conducting searches without a warrant. However, in matters concerning national security, the government should be able conducted these searches despite the fact that it violates the First Amendment. Since law enforcement is able to obtain business records, it would only make sense for federal agents to access records in national security cases from federal courts.
Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence, but waited only a short time perhaps “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. At trial Hudson argued that police violated the knock and announce requirement, therefore all the evidence stemming from the search warrant should be inadmissible. The Trial Judge granted the motion to suppress the evidence. On appeal, Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the motion to suppress.
Case Briefs Case Briefs Dytavis Brown Florida Memorial University Author Note This paper was on prepared March 27, 2013 for Criminal Courts and Procedures taught by Dr. Britt Payton vs. New York: The police entered the homes of Theodore Payton and Obie Riddick without a warrant and subsequently confiscated evidence found on the premises. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution forbid warrantless entries for searches of homes unless exigent circumstances are present, even when there is probable cause. The issue here is whether there was an illegal search and seizure when a warrant
New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), the court had ruled that the seizure of two automobiles that were in plain view during the arrest of the defendant, along with the findings of gunpowder was not violating the defendants Fourth Amendments rights, protection against unreasonable search and seizures. The gun was in plain view without the officer obstructing justice by opening the glove compartment. In Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 197 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), the court stated that an officer had the right to record serial numbers from stolen stereo equipment because it was in plain view, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the equipment was stolen.
The Model Penal Code: Bringing Order to Chaos Abstract The American Model Penal Code (MPC) is a seminal document in the codification of criminal law. It is both heralded as a monument to civil humanity and widely reviled for its encapsulation of retributive violence. It revolutionized legal thought and practice in the United States, as well as Western Europe and Asia. Today, the MPC continues to evolve with the society it supports, while spreading its influence to emerging democratic nations, nations developing secular legal systems, and impacting International Governmental Organizations (IGO), like the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Model Penal Code: Bringing Order to Chaos The purpose of the MPC was to bring about order to the chaos that was American criminal law.
This can be done based solely on suspicion. “The use of “suspicion” as the sole requirement of a search or seizure of citizen homes or offices effectively bypasses the entire judicial system of warranted and supervised seizures, in favor of Justice Department interests.” (Abele, 1) Another cause for concern is that Sections 214, 215, 216, 505, and 412 all do away with the decision-making course that the judicial branch is responsible for. Section 412 gives the Attorney General permission to hold people who are not citizens for a time period between seven days to six months without charging the person in confinement. I feel that there is no purpose for this that makes the nation anymore secure. This is violation of civil rights and liberties in its rawest
In regards to illegal search. Opinion: The majority which was a plurality of 4 on the basis of that there is no difference as far as the constitution is concerned between an informant writing down conversations between themselves and the suspects and electronically recording them. The case that helped shape the opinion was Katz v US. Dissent: Douglas’ opinion was based on that just because the technology did not exist when the constitution was written, it did not mean that the people should not be protected from it. Dissent 2: Harlan’s reasoning was that the fact that the agents had no prior court approval for the surveillance equipment.
the Fourthteenth admendment states that ("No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens. No person should be deprived of life, liberty,or property without Due process"(dummies).Yet again the police did take carefull actions by asking the garbidge man to leave them billys trash.Police did not conduct a “search” as defined by law. A search is a governmental intrusion into something in which a person has a reasionable expaction of privicy(US courts). Greenwood had thrown away the evidence. He
In early America, citizens were considered equal with law enforcement officers, and they were rarely permitted to enter ones private home without permission. The word “privacy” determines whether or not the Fourth Amendment applies, to some extent. The Courts use a two question test to determine whether at the time of the search, “a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things that were searched. Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy? Or is the person's expectation objectively reasonable, and is it one that society is willing to recognize?”(2000 Chief Justice P.1) In the case BOND v. UNITED STATES, on a bus, Border Patrol Agent squeezed a canvas bag owned by Bond, and noticed that it contained a “brick-like” object, later found to be methamphetamine.