alike was on whether the search without a proper warrant amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The case under review touched on the protections extended by the law in the 4th Amendment including the exclusionary limits. The question arises on what exactly the limit of an individual's privacy penumbra is. There is a question as to how an individual's trash content becomes public property. Is trash that has been removed from a person's house and prepared for collection property that can be subjected to public scrutiny? Does one's right to privacy extend all the way to the garbage dump? Should one expect privacy even… Continue Reading...
consent. The Circuit Court granted the motion on the argument that the search breached the Fourth Amendment and later affirmed by the Appellate Court. The Illinois Supreme Court denied a petition for leave to appeal by the state and granted a writ of certiorari (Samaha, 2012).
Issue: The issue was whether the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits warrantless search since police officers did not actually obtain valid consent from an individual who legally had common authority over the residence.
Arguments or Objectives of the Parties: Rodriguez argued that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment since Fischer had no authority to consent to… Continue Reading...
a superhero movie, it does not address the genuine legal problems that surveillance and brainwashing raise. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution addresses surveillance by providing the right to privacy to all American citizens. The government is prohibited from unreasonable searches and seizures according to the Fourth Amendment, and that clause refers to searches and seizures of information, not just of property (Slobogin). There are many types of surveillance that the founding fathers would not have anticipated when the Constitution was ratified. Of course, the most obvious type of surveillance that the founding fathers would not have anticipated is Internet and other digital types of surveillance. In… Continue Reading...
was to reinterpret the meaning of the "exclusionary rule" as pertaining to the Fourth Amendment's guarantee to citizens against unlawful searches and seizures (Maclin, 2014). The exclusionary rule asserted that any evidence gathered by way of a violating the individual's rights against unlawful searches could not be used in a court of law against the individual charged. Implicit in this concept is the idea that unlawful searches cannot and should not be performed by law enforcement. The Court, in Terry v. Ohio, essentially reversed the exclusionary rule principle, said it applied only to the gathering of evidence and that when it came to… Continue Reading...
same time, there are privacy rules and regulations that have to be considered as the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly gives people the right to privacy. Nonetheless, Homeland Security requires that the nation consider the evolution of terrorism and view it not just as an external threat but also as an internal threat. In other words, terrorism is not just a variable or factor that comes from outside the borders—it can also come from inside. Domestic terrorism or homegrown terrorism can result from the radicalization of members of society who are disgruntled, angry and in communication with radical elements abroad. Immigration presents specific… Continue Reading...
(Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw).
Amendment IV offers safeguards to citizens in matters related to investigations and arrests, and forbids the utilization of articles seized without authority as court-room evidence (Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw). How much protection a citizen enjoys in any given instance is dependent on apprehension nature, searched location characteristics, and circumstances of search. However, for stopping or keeping any citizen in custody, law enforcement officials need to have satisfactory suspicion (in other words, impartial, soundgrounds to believe the apprehended individual was potentially embroiled… Continue Reading...
overboard while effecting arrests or pursuing criminals. The use of force, according to Greene (2007), is captured under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, any excessive act of aggression by a police officer during the arrest of a suspect would be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is also important to note that as Greene (2007) observes, civil lawsuits can also be brought against police departments in those instances where persons feel that police went overboard during the apprehension of a suspect.
Due to the lack of uniform guidelines relating to the use of force, there are a variety of policies that have been implemented by police departments in the… Continue Reading...
2019). In this case, the jewelry found in the accused house serves as circumstantial evidence.
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution mandates the investigator to establish “probable cause” prior…[…… parts of this paper are missing, click here to view the entire document ]…be just (Frances & Nicholas, 2011).
While sentencing may occur immediately after the trial, serious charges, a sentencing hearing is set on another date for an evaluation on the appropriate sentence. In this case, the accused was well known by the police for his prior arrests and convictions for the sale of narcotics which provides enough grounds for a separate sentence hearing. Prior… Continue Reading...
