for driving while intoxicated. Schmerber was convicted‚ then filed an appeal against The State of Califoria. PROCEDURE: The Appellate Department of California Superior Court affirmed appellant’s conviction. ISSUES: Did the blood test violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self- incrimination? DECISION: No. The Supreme Court based its finding on precedent. While acknowledging that the State “compelled [petitioner] to submit to an attempt to discover evidence that might used to prosecute
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Appeal United States
Illinois‚ Supra and United States v. Di Re‚ 332 U.S. 581 (1948). In Ybarra‚ police officers obtained a warrant to search a tavern and its bartender for evidence of possession of a controlled substance. Not only did the police search the tavern and the bartender but all the patrons
Premium Police Crime Police brutality
this she "dropped the bomb" and filed a lawsuit saying it violated her daughter’s fourth amendment right (which was the right thing to do)and that she was never contacted during the search at anytime. Proceeding to the trial‚ the District court found no violation and a panel agreed‚ but on the appeal in a "en banc decision 6-5" the court reversed the other decision saying that it DID in fact violate her fourth amendment right. School district appealed to the Supreme Court and approved there appeal
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule – Evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment cannot be used at trial – The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct – What other purpose does the exclusionary rule have? The Exclusionary Rule In Mapp v Ohio (1961)‚ the Court stated that any evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be admitted into any court‚ state or federal. The Exclusionary Rule Determining What is Inadmissible – Illegally
Premium Exclusionary rule United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
According to the Fourth Amendment‚ The right of people to be secure in their persons‚ houses‚ papers‚ against unreasonable searches and seizures shall no be violated and no warrants shall issue‚ but upon reasonable cause supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures requires police‚ if they have time to obtain a valid search warrant‚ issued by a magistrate after the
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Law
who had violayed safety rules. The constitutional amendment in question with this case is the Fourth Amendment. This amendment protects against illegal search and seizure‚ encompasses the concept of a right to privacy‚ and we the respondents are arguing that it is unconstitutional to search them for drugs and/or alcohol via testing of their urine or blood. Griswold v. Connecticut upheld the concept of a right to privacy‚ overturning a state law banning the usage of contraceptive. The US Supreme
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
on the door and announcing “police) would have been enough of a catalyst to cause the individuals in the apartment to destroy evidence. The Kentucky Supreme Court sought the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court due to the split of opinion between the state and the federal courts‚ regarding the weight of exigent
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Noah Young Mr. Koch AP Capstone Seminar P. 3 5 February 2016 Individual Research Report The ethical lens that stems from the question‚ “Should the National Security Agency (NSA) restore the process of collecting and storing surveillance data in bulk from flagged and targeted cell phones provided by telecommunication companies”‚ is important because it provides realistic views from society on a controversial topic and shows action plans that people have proposed in order to make it easier to come
Premium United States Constitution Privacy United States
Document Summary Document 26 pertains to the NSA procedures that deal with acquisition and archiving of communications of U.S. citizens. It is one of the top-secret documents that was leaked by Snowden and published by The Guardian. The document lists the procedures meant to monitor and track any suspicious‚ terroristic activities‚ and events that impose the endangerment of a human’s life under the FISA act. The focus of the surveillance is to specifically monitor any foreign communications between
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Democratic Party George W. Bush
therefore they should have had a warrant before going there. Issue: A warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances is reasonable when the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. Meaning in this case‚ if the police had not busted down the door there would have never been destruction of drugs and paraphernalia. Kentucky Supreme Court actually asked whether officers deliberately created the exigent circumstances with
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States