Tony Tasinas No Heroes, No Villains CRJ 101-Professor Smalls 12/7/15 On June 28, 1972, James Richardson awaiting the subway train which would take him to work. He was stopped and ordered to “put up your hands, and get against the wall”.…
Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) Parties: State of Maryland, Petitioner / Appellant Joseph Jermaine Pringle, Defendant / Appellee Case Facts: On August 7th, 1999 a Maryland police officers legally stopped a car for speeding in the early morning hours. The car was occupied by three men, to include the Defendant/Appellee Joseph Jermaine Pringle. The Officer that initiated the stop saw a large roll of cash in the glovebox while the driver was retrieving his registration. All men were checked and cleared for outstanding warrants and a warning was issued to the vehicles driver. The officer requested and was granted permission to search the vehicle.…
• P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P alleges that he was walking on the sidewalk when MOS Rubin and Sgt. Calhoun approached him. P claims that MOS Rubin and Sgt. Calhoun grabbed him, threw him to the ground, and then banged his head into the sidewalk.…
Searching procedures at county jails strike a reasonable and required balance between the inmates' privacy and the institutions need to safeguard the safety of both the inmates and staff. Reasoning: Issue 1: The court held that correctional officials need sensible discretion to formulate practical solutions to troubles facing correctional facilities. This involves devising reasonable search policies that limit the entry of any kind of contraband in the facilities. Thus, the plaintiff's plea of a 4th and 14th Amendment right violation on a violation of privacy is overridden by the fact that detainees and prisoners pose a significant risk to each other, and thus the strip searches are validated.…
Was the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments violated? Holding: The Trial Court held that the officer did have probable cause to search the vehicle and arrest the three men. The Supreme Court held that the officer did have probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed the crime of possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Courts holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle also proves that the officer did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.…
The court decided that the respondent was not seized by the police setting the detour and he just got to be seized under the which means of the Fourth Amendment when he really collided with the tractor trailer. Candidates' decedent (Brower) was executed when the stolen auto he had been driving at high speeds to escape seeking after police collided with a police barricade. Solicitors brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Federal District Court, guaranteeing, inte alia, that respondents, acting under shade of law, damaged Brower's Fourth Amendment rights by effecting an absurd seizure utilizing inordinate power. In particular, the protestation affirms that respondents put a 18-wheel truck totally over the roadway in the way of Brower's flight, behind a bend, with a police cruiser's headlights pointed in such manner as to visually impaired Brower on his methodology.…
Indeed, the Terry search principle was regarded, and the limit to which it was supposed to be conducted was reviewed, Terry vs. Ohio case. The court further went into other cases that had resolved issues on the fourth amendment and the Terry search (Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993). Indeed, in Michigan vs. Long, the Court held that in the context of that case, a Terry search allowed the search of the individual and passenger’s compartments of the automobile to ascertain beyond doubt that the defendant was not armed and dangerous. In limited cases, the Court held that when contraband is retrieved, then the officer cannot ignore the contraband as the Fourth Amendment does not suppress it under those circumstances. However, the court in Long had ruled that if police lacked probable cause in believing that the object in plain view was contraband then conducting a further search to make the object apparent would make the plain view doctrine unwarranted with the seizure of the contraband.…
Some states allow the plain touch exception; nevertheless, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused. The court maintained that the search performed on Dickerson was far more invasive than what is applicable under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the courts stated that by allowing the “plain touch” exception, there have been numerous unlawful searches and seizures conducted. Officers can confiscate contraband, and it can be used against the perpetrator; yet, it must be within the same boundaries that are set in place by Terry vs.…
History has allowed for police officers to search an arrestee’s person and vehicle without a warrant under certain circumstances. However, under the Fourth Amendment, is it constitutional for police officers to search through electronic data and information instilled in a cellphone? A cellphone may contain evidence pertaining to crimes, but cellphones also hold an immense amount of personal information of not only the owner’s, but of other people as well. Riley v. California seeks to establish a fine line between law enforcement and the protection of privacy.…
However if the officer had pulled these individuals over soley based on the color of their skin, he would not be able to search and seize the individuals. The fourth amendment forbids an officer to search and seize soley on the basis of race, and if the officer had racially profiled the individuals then they could have filed a motion to suppress. However, the officer acted within the scope of the seizure by having legitimate interest and suspicions. The Fourth Amendment clearly states that an officer may search the person arrested, those in plain view of the officer and the accused, and things or places that the acussed person can touch, or that is otherwise in their immediate personal control without a warrant as long as there is legitimate reasoning and it is not an unreasonable search.…
Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license by police. Before officers searched his car, Gant was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car. In the vehicle search, officers found cocaine and a handgun. During trial, the court denied Grant’s motion to overturn the evidence of cocaine and the handgun on grounds that police lacked a search warrant for his vehicle, and therefore violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court denied his motion, ruling the evidence obtained through a legitimate stop and arrest, and in result Gant was convicted with procession of cocaine.…
The trial court, in this case the Superior Court, dismissed, or dropped, the charges against Mr. Greenwood stating that the warrantless searches of Mr. Greenwood's trash violated the protection from unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The government then appealed to the Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court, both courts denied the government's claims and the case was finally appealed the United States Supreme Court.…
During the search, police found things like a Uzi machine gun, a .38 caliber revolver, two stun guns, and a handcuff key, but did not find the supposedly stolen stuff. Police Officers did confiscate the weapons while in search for the stolen items and used it in court. So therefore his fourth amendment was violated. 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. " This action performed by the police officers reminds me of the supreme court case, Mapp V. Ohio.…
DAVID FALLSBAUER’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WERE VIOLATED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS, BECAUSE WHEN FACED WITH AMBIGUITY REGARDING THE A THIRD PARTY’S CONSENT TO SEARCH THEY FAILED TO MAKE A FURTHER INQUIRY. BY DOING SO, THE OFFICERS VIOLATED DAVID’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY. The primary question before this Court is whether police officers must make a further inquiry when faced with an ambiguity regarding a third party’s consent to search. The Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have taken different views when deciding the actions a police officer must take when faced with an ambiguity pertaining to third party consent. It is crucial to our society that a person’s right to privacy is protected and able to be exercised.…
The question of the case against Mapps was if the evidence obtained through the search violated the Fourth Amendment and should it been allowed for criminal proceeding…