In the case Ridley v. California the Court decided on whether the searching of a smart phone of someone placed under arrest without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. David Ridley was arrested for possession of firearms. During the arrest an officer seized Ridley’s cell phone and searched his phone without obtaining a warrant from a judge. The officer found evidence that involves him in an earlier gang shooting and charged him in the shooting. During his trial the California Court of Appeals ruled that the search and the obtaining evidence from his cell phone was valid. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court decide unanimously that police need a warrant to search a suspect’s cell phone.…
Procedural History: Mapp petition for a writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court for the appreal from the Supreme Court of Ohio.…
Mapp vs. ohio: The surrounding of the case was the police came in her house try to find a bomb suspect they found the bomb suspect but they also found pornograph pics of her self so she was arrested that day. The supreme court's decision was that when a police officer is searching you or your house they have to specify what they are looking for. The courts decision maid a big change because the cops if they come in your house looking for a gun but they find a knife they cant arrest you for it because they have to specify what they are looking for.…
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 1081, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961)…
In the case US v. Calandra (1974), Calandra was being questioned by the federal grand jury about loan sharking business. The reason the jury was asking these question were based on the evidence obtained at his company. Calandra didn’t want to answer any questions because he felt that the search of the company was an unlawful search and that it violated his fourth amendment exclusionary rule. The refusal to answer the grand jury, was what was being question about this case. Calandra felt like because of the exclusionary rule unde0r the fourth amendment he didn’t have to answer but he was wrong. The supreme court held that the exclusionary rule was only applicable in criminal courts and was not meant to be seen as a right but as a way to reduce unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by police ("Oyez: US v. Calandra," n.d.).…
One of the many things learned at state police academies around the country is the “Terry pat”. What a Terry pat is, is a basic pat down of a suspects outer clothing, searching for weapons. The name came be known by a Superior Court case in the 1960’s, known as Terry v. Ohio.…
The case Arizona vs. Grant occured because an event that happened on August 25, 1999 involving two police officers, and a suspect who was believed to be involved in narcotics activity. The officers first visit to the house where the suspect lived was followed by a second visit later that night because he wasnt there at the initial visit. After their first visit they ran a background check and found causes for the arrest of the subject, Rodney Grant. Upon the second return the subject Rodney Grant was apprehended after pulling into his driveway and walking about ten feet towards the officers. After they placed him in the police vehicle, they searched the suspects car, which was the cause of the Arizona vs Grant case, because of a debate on evidence pulled from the car without reasonable reasons to search it. Although there was cocaine and a weapons in the car, the officers didnt have reasons to prove why the searched it after the suspect had already been apprehended and put into the police vehicle. It is because of this that led to questioning of why the car was searched because Grant was not in the nearby vicinity of the vehicle and therefore no harm to the officers unless he had a weapons in his immediate possession.…
Facts- Detroit police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of Booker Hudson. When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence but waited “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. Police discovered large quantities of drugs, including cocaine rocks in Hudson’s pocket and a loaded gun placed in between the cushion and armrest of a chair in which he was sitting.. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. Hudson moved to suppress the evidence.…
The Terry v. Ohio case took place on December 12th of 1976. The case was filed by John Terry who claimed that his arrest resulted from an invasion of his privacy. Terry believed that Officer McFadden violated his 4th Amendment rights, which protect citizens of the United States from unlawful searches and seizures conducted by police officers or law enforcement agents.…
California case along with the Wurie v. United States case both helped change police protocol across the nation so that no one else would have their fourth amendment violated. As of today officers who search without a warrant are required to delete seized data that was collected without a search warrant. This ensures that every person gets their proper rights that the constitution ensures. After what happened during the Riley v. California case and how the supreme court created the de facto law that all officers need a warrant to search a phone unless it is urgent no police officer has gone against this law. This is because they know the consequences and it could also tarnish a extremely important case by possibly having to get rid of important information found without a…
Is a person's sudden flight from identifiable police officer, patrolling a high crime area, suspicious to justify the officer's stop and frisk of that person? This was the question that the justices of the Supreme Court were asking themselves when they heard the case of Illinois v. Wardlow on the date of November 2, 1999.…
Roy Olmstead was accused of importing and possessing illegal liquors back in 1927. He was later proved guilty by wiretaps installed in his basement. Olmstead tried saying that his 4th and 5th amendment were violated, but in conclusion his 4th amendment rights were not infringed because mere wiretapping does not qualify under a search or seizure. To be searched means that they would physically have to be there searching for something without a warrant that is. They are allowed to do so with a warrant. The vote behind his rights were 5-4 not in his favor. So he was later detained and arrested by the police. In this court case the officials learned a lot about how they should think, they decided that they should not back down in that sort of situation…
The most famous search and seizure is Mapp v. Ohio. This case happens back in 1961, March 29 and end on June 19, 1961. Which were an unreasonable searches and seizures what relates on the fourth Amendment. When the police received a tip that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive, they immediately went to her house and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and under his advice she refused to give them entry because they did not have a warrant. Later on that day more officers came to her door and demanded that they be allowed to enter her house. After Mapp refused, they opened a door to the house through forced entry. Knock down her door completely. Mapp confronted them and demanded to see the search warrant. The police waved a piece of paper in the air claiming it was the warrant and Mapp grabbed it and put it down her shirt. The police eventually got the "warrant" back from Mapp. Also when the cop took the paper back for the warrant for her Mapp was taking a deep thought on how was that was right for him to not let her see the information about the warrant. Next, Mapp was cuffed her feet and went on to search her entire house for the fugitive. When they reached her basement they found a trunk containing a small collection of pornographic books, pictures, and photographs. Mapp said the trunk was left in the basement by a previous tenant and was not aware of its contents. The officers arrested Mapp for violating an Ohio law which prohibited the possession of obscene material. On her arrest she knows the laws for Ohio but they didn’t even give her time to discuss or tell who use to live in their home before her. No fugitive or any evidence of one was ever found at the house. Nothing but pic what Mapp didn’t have a clue who they belong to. At her trial in the Court room, Mapp was charged based on the evidence that was presented by the police. Mapp's attorney questioned the police about the…
Facts: In October on 1963, a Cleveland police office saw two men, John Terry and Richard Chilton standing on a street corner and appearing suspicious. One of them would walk past a certain store window, look around inside, and walk back to the other and talk for a short period of time. This was repeated about a dozen times, and the detective believed they were casing the store for a robbery. The officer approached the two, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. They then appeared suspicious in their answers, so the officer patted them down for weapons and discovered that both men were armed. He removed their guns and arrested them on charges of carrying concealed weapons. When the trial court denied his motion to suppress,…
In the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case, T.LO. and her friend were accused by a teacher for smoking in the bathroom. Her friend admitted to, but T.L.O kept denying it. The teacher brought her purse to the principal, and the principal demanded to see her purse. Proof that T.LO. was selling drugs was found. They took it to the police and she finally committed to selling marijuana. The state of New Jersey brought charges against her. In court she argued that the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches had been violated. In juvenile court they sided with the school and then in New Jersey Supreme Court they said the search was unreasonable. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that “the school had met a ‘reasonableness’ standard for for conducting such searches at school”. It was also decided that “school administrators do not need a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students have a reduced expectation of privacy when in school”.…