Hypothetical Cases: Fourth Amendment Essay Example
Hypothetical Cases: Fourth Amendment Essay Example

Hypothetical Cases: Fourth Amendment Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 3 (722 words)
  • Published: April 3, 2017
  • Type: Essay
View Entire Sample
Text preview

The stop is valid because of reasonable suspicion that refers to a belief that a crime is in progress or has occurred. Omar looks suspicious because of the use of heavy clothing on a warm night. For example, in the 1968 case of Terry vs. Ohio an agent conducted a limited pat-down search on suspects. Based on stop and frisk the detective Martin McFadden observed two men, John Terry and Richard Chilton, walking back and forward along an identical route. They were joined by a third man, Katz, who left after a brief conversation. McFadden followed terry and Chilton and saw them rejoin with Katz a couple of blocks away.

The officer approached them and asked their names. He patted down the individuals finding two weapons. Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The police action is

...

right based on the 1983 case of United States vs. Place, that law enforcement agents may temporarily detain luggage on the basis of a suspicion amounting less than probable cause that the luggage contains narcotics or weapons. This case was based on a situation that occurred in the Miami airport. The officers approached him in his way to the gate and asked him for identification.

The agent discovered that Place had no outstanding warrants. Then they asked to search Place’s luggage, but Place refused to allow the agents to do so. They took the luggage into a federal judge to obtain a warrant to search. Place’s luggage was taken and allowed a train narcotics detections dog to perform a sniff test. They discovered over a kilogram of cocaine. It’s valid because the court has ruled that if reasonable

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

suspicion exists to believe that a motor vehicle contraband or any other types of criminal evidence, a warrantless search by the police is permitted, including a search of closed containers in a vehicle.

The 1925 case of Carroll vs. United States was based on a stop that an officer made due to a reasonable suspicion on a vehicle. The officer without a warrant searched the vehicle finding an illegal substance (liquor) behind the rear seat. Carroll was arrested, but he case was sent to court. Arrest is the act of taking a person into custody by authority of law, and “stop and frisk” is when a police officer detains a person for being suspicious and lightly pat him/her down to determine if the individual is carrying concealed weapons, Based on the 1968 case of Terry vs.

Ohio. The search is invalid because the officer is violating your 4th amendment and has no probable cause or a search warrant. In the 1998 case of Knowles vs. Iowa a policeman stopped Patrick Knowles for speeding and gives him a citation, but he did not make a custodial arrest. The officer conducted a full search without Knowles consent or probable cause. Marijuana was found and Knowles was arrested. The search was illegal due to a search incident to citation. Terry vs. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement because it established the stop and frisk exception.

It allows law enforcement to briefly detain and pat down a person if the individual looks suspicious. The silver platter doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule, valid until 1960, permitted the federal court to obtain illegally seized evidence by state officers in

searches that didn’t involve neither federal participation nor federal directions. It was first applied to federal courts in the 1914 case of Weeks vs. United States. If the police makes an honest and reasonable error or mistake that violates the Fourth Amendment, the evidence may have not have to be excluded because of application of the good faith exception.

Assume that the police search Mr. X’s home without a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. At the home they find a key that recognizes as being for the lockers at the local bus station. They go to the bus station and find and open the locker. Inside the locker they find cocaine. Under the Exclusionary rule, this evidence is not admissible. The plain view doctrine states that items within the sight of an officer who is lawfully in the place from which the view is made may properly be seized without a warrant as long as such items are immediately recognized as being subject to seizure.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New