against drug use and a solid prevention strategy. The fourth amendment says "unreasonable search and seizure‚" It is NOT unreasonable to search a person if someone is giving them something. If a bank was giving out a loan‚ it would be quite reasonable for them search the applicant’s credit history. Applicants must to submit private and personal data to show they are eligible to receive government benefits. It is important that federal and state governments make sure that individuals who are receiving
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Law
was seized. The original search was done without a warrant‚ only consent of the homeowner to be in the apartment. Only when an officer has probable cause can they evoke the plain view doctrine. Was the search reasonable under the fourth amendment? Fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ houses‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizures‚ shall not be violated‚ and no warrants shall issue‚ but upon probable cause‚ supported by oath or affirmation
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
of an anticipatory search warrant is dependent upon: a. a triggering condition. b. reasonable suspicion. c. reasonable suspicion and a triggering condition. d. witness testimony and reasonable suspicion. 2. For Fourth Amendment purposes‚ a seizure of property occurs whenever there is a(n) a. invasion of a constitutionally protected area. b. interference with a person’s possessory interests in that property. c. interference with a person’s reasonable
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
1. Can you (or Mr. Yourprop’s supervisor) search Yourprop’s personal vehicle currently parked in the Company parking lot for digital evidence? Support your answer. a. Pursuant to the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution‚ Mr. Yourprop and all other employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy which would prevent me and his supervisor from freely searching his vehicle. The easiest and most efficient way that would prevent questions of immiscibility in court and protect the company from legal
Premium United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Police
under the Fourth Amendment. The plain view doctrine states that items that are within the sight of a police officer who is legally in a place from which the view is made may properly be seized without a warrant as long as such items are immediately recognizable as subject to seizure (Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice 2004). In other instances police can also seize evidence that is in open fields. The open fields doctrine holds that items in open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment’s
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Searches and seizures
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
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
Privacy protections against government searches are provided by state and federal laws‚ and by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment‚ which provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ houses‚ papers and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizures‚ shall not be violated.” Courts have slowly developed different frameworks as they grapple with how to apply the original intentions of the Fourth Amendment to new social circumstances. Federal courts‚ due to the slow pace
Premium Law Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
conclusion. The case Heien v. North Carolina came about on April 29‚ 2010 when an officer started “following a suspicious vehicle‚ Sergeant Matt Darisse noticed that only one of the vehicle’s brake lights was working and pulled the driver over. While issuing a warning ticket for the broken brake light‚ Darisse became suspicious of the actions of the two occupants and their answers to his questions. Petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien‚ the car’s owner‚ gave Darisse consent to search the vehicle. Darisse
Premium Appellate court Supreme court Appeal
ethnicity‚ religion‚ or national origin. Racial profiling does not work and is unconstitutional. Criminal profiling works if it is based off of behavioral factors‚ not race. Racial profiling is not only discriminatory‚ but against the law in many states. An example of racial profiling would be when certain federal courts showed that transportation systems engage in racial profiling of their passengers in violation of Federal law‚ like in Boston‚ where an employee from the airport removed a Hispanic
Free Race Black people White people
Pringle that if no one claim the drugs‚ that they all would be arrested. Officer Snyder arrested all three occupants after they denied ownership of the drugs and money. The state court sentenced Pringle‚ the front- seat passenger‚ for possessing and intending to distribute cocaine after he signed a written confession. The state appellate court reversed the conviction‚ holding that the finding of cocaine was in the back armrest and Pringle was in the front-seat of a car meaning that it cannot belong
Premium Appellate court Appeal Car seat