The first sentence of Chief Justice Warren's opinion in Terry v Ohio, is as follows: "This case presents serious questions concerning the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on the street between the citizen and the policeman investigating suspicious circumstances.” According to Chief Justice Warren this issue had never been approached in the Supreme Court. Warren also stated “This case is dealing on the one hand with is frequently argued that in dealing with the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets the police are in need of an escalating set of flexible responses, graduated in relation to the amount of information they possess. For this purpose it is urged that distinctions should be made between a "stop" and an "arrest" (or a "seizure" of a person), and between a "frisk" and a "search." He believed this could be imposed because it was a minor inconvenience to the person being searched and was acceptable in order for effective law enforcement and secure the safety of the…
The issue brought into question in the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968 involved a police officer, McFadden, who was patrolling the area in normal clothes. He came across two men pacing the area suspiciously and glancing into a store. He the watched them meet at a street corner frequently where they were joined by another man. After watching them do this approximately twenty-four times he approached the group and asked them their names. He patted down the overcoat that the man was wearing and felt a revolver, which he then removed. The defense argued the issue to be admissibility of evidence uncovered by an improper search and seizure. They argued that the Fourth Amendment protects the people despite where they are; at home or on the streets. It…
Atwater v City of Lago Vista (2001) was a case concerning the fourth amendment. This case was where the defendant Atwater was arrested for a seat belt violation. O’Connor wrote the dissent that the arrest was unreasonable. O’Connor stated “…pointless indignity’ that served no discernible state interest and yet holds that her arrest was constitutionally permissible (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2005).” She implies that if an officer believes someone committed a crime in their presence they can arrest the accused person. This in O’Connor’s opinion presents an issue with the precedence it sets. To her it seems that police officers can use this to explore options that would be otherwise not permitted without an arrest.…
The issue in this case there was a girl named Heather Ennis who worked at Elks Club as manger she been worked with them from July 15th to July 24th. Then on the 26th of July she takes off 3 days to see her husband who was convicted for 6 murder charges and without parole for 25 years, so he was pretty much was in jail for a sentence of life. Then the article talks about how she meets the guy, Heather Ennis meets this guy off a friend of a friend. That’s how they both established a relationship and over a time period they got serious about this relationship and results in them getting married while he remained incarcerated. On July 26th Heather goes to the prison to visit her husband as she went in a member of the elks club who worked at the prison noticed her. I believe when he noticed the fact that Elks Club hired a woman who was married to David Ennis the man who was convicted of murder. The Board of the club had a meeting on the 29th the day when she was suppose to return back to work, they have made a decision about her termination. Heather Ennis didn’t even received any reasons for her termination, and there was also no evidence that she did anything wrong to get terminated. Later Heather Ennis believed the reason for her termination was because she was married to David Ennis.…
The Fourth Amendment was set in place to protect society from unlawful police work. When it comes to apprehending criminals and ensuring their conviction, evidence needs to be gathered before hand. To do so, there is a lengthy process to be followed; the search and seizure method, the arrest, reasonableness, and right of privacy methods. However, there are laws that can protect officers in the line of duty or make accommodations to police work while in the line of duty. One law that helps protect police officers during the line of duty is the “stop and frisk.” However, for an arrest to take place there must be probable cause in that it must be more than likely than not that a violation of the law has been committed and the individual arrested committed the…
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” Mapp V. Ohio (1961) dealt with that very sentence of the constitution. Were the officers at fault or Mapp? This complex question has a complex answer one that puzzled the Supreme Court and led to a change in criminal procedure. The verdict was a strict interpretation of the constitution. The fourth amendment was relevant because the fourteenth amendment grunted due process. It was a very good decision, it protected the black minority who at the time were being routinely harassed and convicted for no reasons. This decision certainly did not stop that but it made it harder…
Initially, no charges were brought against the officer for this incident. Edward Garner’s father then filed a claim with the Federal District Court with no success. They had affirmed the decision that the officer had acted in good faith and within reason. The dissenting opinion of the Court was that the officer had done no wrong and acted rationally under the statute of the state and the departmental policy. The majority opinion was that the 4th Amendment had been violated because the reasonableness of the officers action could not be validated as no harm had been attempted on…
One of the main conflicts occurring in the United States today deals with police brutality and the relationship between police officers and their communities. Two Books Argue the Case for Police Reform From Within, an article in the New York Times, stated that approximately one-thousand people in America are killed annually at the expense of police officers. This number is shocking to many due to the fact that the amount of violent crime and deaths of on-duty police officers has decreased greatly and continues to do so. This article talks about how police enforcement abuses their powers and how they are thought to have too much power which leads to this abuse. It discusses cases that deal with the Fourth Amendment right of American Citizens and where police have used deadly force in instances that it was not necessary, leading to a movement known as Black Lives Matter.…
Officers are supposed to protect us instead they are just killing people in an instance.…
In the movie “Training Day” there were several events that occurred that were violating individual’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment. An even though depending upon the situation of the events there can be certain things a police officer can do if they have a reasonable/probable explanation behind their actions. Some of the events that’s occurred in the movie were the pulling over a vehicle of college students, violence against homeless men, Violation on Snoop Dogg, and the home search of Macy Gray. All instances had some type of violation against one’s self or property.…
The courts have reasoned that illegally obtained evidence can not be used in a trial to do so would be to condone unconstitutional behavior, thereby “compromising the integrity of the jury.” (Jackson, 1996) The Fourth Amendment is a constraint on the power of the police officers, and gives the officers an incentive to control their power. The exclusionary rule has great legal implications in that it protects American citizens from officers and other State actors who have personal motivations that “may otherwise be in conflict with Fourth Amendment compliance.” (Jackson, 1996) In fact, the Supreme Court has held that the abuses that gave rise to the exclusionary rule featured intentional conduct which was patently unconstitutional. (Herring,…
The Fourth Amendment is the most prolific source of constitutional litigation in American history, particularly with application to the states after its incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. All the arrest that are made has to do with the fourth amendment, so that is something that has a big part in the arrests being made. Every search or seizures that are made by teachers, probation officers, police, airport security, or even a crossing guard are dealing with the fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment is the constitutional sentry whenever someone's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure. This protects them unless there is a reasonable suspicion or if there is a warrant. The Court declares,…
This is to acknowledge that I understand that I am being offered a position with the Arizona Department of Corrections as a Correctional Officer even though I have a traffic violation with a balance to pay. I understand that if I do not provide proof that my traffic violation has been paid in full, before my graduation date I may be terminated from my position without…
No matter what the law or what the scenario every human citizen of the United States of America is entitled to their constitutional rights regardless of employments, social status, race/ethnicity, or religion. This is no different for any person in the law enforcement field or in the criminal justice field in general. The most important amendment to look at when talking about law enforcement, especially with the uprising use of body cameras, which will be discussed later in this document, is the first amendment which has aspects of it that allow for freedom of speech. Although police officers are scrutinized and put in the public eye so often it is important to understand that these officers are still humans and they are still citizens of The United States and thus are fully entitled to their rights. Although an acting police officer is held to different standards they are citizens and must be treated as such in the core sense according to the First Amendment of The Constitution. (Legal Information Institute. CRS Annotated Constitution: First…
Arizona (1978), the police collected evidence for four days after the suspect’s apprehension and the death of a police officer at the time of the arrest. He was convicted for murder, assault and narcotics offences. However, because they collected the evidence without a warrant, the suspect’s conviction on the murder of the police officer and assault charges was reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court, but upheld the narcotics conviction. This is a prime example of where the Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful searches. Even though the evidence was overwhelming proof that the suspect murdered the police officer, it was the responsibility of the police to do their due diligence to conduct the search legally. Had they obtained the proper warrants, the conviction would have still been upheld and the suspect would have been punished for the crime he…