4th Amendment Case Study
Essay #1
Explain the two-fold requirement discussed in Katz v. United States, for analyzing when a search occurs under the 4th Amendment.
According to Justice Harlan concurring opinion in Criminal Procedures, the understanding of the 4th Amendment is that its protection is for people and not places. Therefore, he proceeds to give the explanation of the ‘two fold requirement’ for searches that occurs under the 4th Amendment while analyzing the Kat v. United States. “Firstly, did a person exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable’”. Justice Harlan continues his statement saying that a person’s home, a place is where they expect privacy, however “objects, activities, or statements that are exposed by them to the “plain view” is not protected under the 4th Amendment”, since there was no intentions to keep to …show more content…
Ohio, in Criminal Procedures states although he agrees with the seizing and the frisk of the petitioner that lead to guns found was a valid search, understanding how the seizure and search came about is mysterious. According to Justice Douglas, for the search and seizure to be constitutional, the police officer had to have “probable cause” to “believe that (a) a crime was committed or (b) a crime was in the process of being committed or (c) a crime was about to be committed” (331). However, the opinion of the court denies the existence of probable cause, knowingly that the officer did not have probable cause to search the petitioners. If a warrant was to be filed to allow the search, the magistrate would not issue it simply because the officer cannot act if there is no probable cause (331-332). I do disagree with Justice Douglas’ Dissenting Opinion on the case, simply based off the reasons that the officer witnessed the perpetrators passing by the same store repeatedly and looking inside through the
Explain the two-fold requirement discussed in Katz v. United States, for analyzing when a search occurs under the 4th Amendment.
According to Justice Harlan concurring opinion in Criminal Procedures, the understanding of the 4th Amendment is that its protection is for people and not places. Therefore, he proceeds to give the explanation of the ‘two fold requirement’ for searches that occurs under the 4th Amendment while analyzing the Kat v. United States. “Firstly, did a person exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable’”. Justice Harlan continues his statement saying that a person’s home, a place is where they expect privacy, however “objects, activities, or statements that are exposed by them to the “plain view” is not protected under the 4th Amendment”, since there was no intentions to keep to …show more content…
Ohio, in Criminal Procedures states although he agrees with the seizing and the frisk of the petitioner that lead to guns found was a valid search, understanding how the seizure and search came about is mysterious. According to Justice Douglas, for the search and seizure to be constitutional, the police officer had to have “probable cause” to “believe that (a) a crime was committed or (b) a crime was in the process of being committed or (c) a crime was about to be committed” (331). However, the opinion of the court denies the existence of probable cause, knowingly that the officer did not have probable cause to search the petitioners. If a warrant was to be filed to allow the search, the magistrate would not issue it simply because the officer cannot act if there is no probable cause (331-332). I do disagree with Justice Douglas’ Dissenting Opinion on the case, simply based off the reasons that the officer witnessed the perpetrators passing by the same store repeatedly and looking inside through the