Answers these questions:

1. Briefly summarize each of the 3 cases related to your "place" in 3-4 sentences each.

2. Which case stood out to you the most? Why?

Case two: In this case Wyoming V. Houghton the police pulled over a car for a faulty brake light. After pulling them over they say a syringe in the drivers pocket. The driver then admitted to doing drugs. Then they exited the car and were being questioned. They gave the police a fake name. The police searched for her purse and found the real name as well as drugs. The police stopped this car legally and were allowed to search for them because they saw the syringe.

Case three: in the case Arizona V. Gant, the police knew that Gant had a suspended license and later saw him pull up in a care and get out. The police handcuffed him and put him in the back of the cop car. They then began to search his car. They found a gun along with drugs. He was tried with drug possession with intent to sell. He argued that there was no reason for them to search his car since he was tied up already. The court agreed with Gant and found it violated to his Fourth amendment, especially because they had no suspicion of drug use.

We learned the most from Arizona V. Gant. This case showed that the police violated the Fourth amendment even though Gant was arrested. This shows that police do have limits and can't violate the Fourth amendment.

Jude A, Zack S, Bodie M

1. T.L.O was accused of smoking cigarettes and was then searched. After the search they found Cigs, Rolling Paper, Marjuana and a Pipe. T.L.O argued her 4th amendment but the scholl searched under reasonable suspicion.

2. A school is making student-athletes take drug tests before the season and 10% of athletes are randomly selected once per week. one student didnt want to sign the consent form and couldnt play. and the court sided with the school.

3. A student told school officials a 13 yr old girl was selling prescription strength ibuprophen to other students. This student was called to the office and told to strip to her underwear in front of school officials and then told to shake to confirm nothing is hiding in her underwear. The court sided with the student because the nature of the search was unreasonable and it was embarrassing.

The case that stood out to us the most was the 3rd case on our list because it is almost unbelievable how unnecessary this search was. For Prescription Ibuprofen there is zero reason for this level of search.

1. The officer saw Terry and another man walking up and down the street looking in a store window. The officer thought they might be casing the store and might be armed. In response to that, the officer asked the men to identify themselves and do a pat down. During the pat down, the officer found a gun on both people, and Terry was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

Katz frequently used a phone booth in LA to illegally place bets in other parts of the country. The police set up an electronic listening device in the booth without a warrant. The recording of Katz calls was used on him in court. He claimed that the use of the device violated his 4th amendment right. California claimed that Katz had no reasonable expectation to think that his calls would be private in a public booth.

The police received news that Greenwood was selling drugs from his home, the police officer then asked the trash collector to set aside Greenwoods trash for inspection. He then went through the bags in front of Greenwoods house and found drugs, he then used that evidence to get a warrant to search the home, and the police found drugs. He was then charged with drug possession and drug trafficking. But he said that the warrentless search violated his 4th amendment rights.

2. We think that the second case that stands out the most is case #2. We expected that having calls being recorded in a public phone booth is legal.

Question 1:

Case 1 (Terry v. Ohio): Terry and another man were walking down the street one day, stopping and looking into each window of every store. The police saw this and thought it was suspicious. The officer stopped Terry and the man he was with and patted both of them down. During the search, the officer found a gun. The Supreme Court said that the gun could be used against him as evidence.

Case 2 (Katz v. United States): Katz used a phone booth to illegally place bets. He frequently used the same phone booth, so the police set up an electronic recording device. Katz’s portion of the recording was used against him in his trial for illegal gambling. The court said that the Fourth Amendment applies in this case.

Case 3 (California v. Greenwood): The police received a tip that Greenwood was selling drugs. An officer asked the trash collector to set Greenwood's trash aside when he was collecting trash. The officer then searched through the trash and found evidence of drug use, which was used as evidence to get a warrant to search Greenwood’s home. The court said that there was no role for the Fourth Amendment in this case, because we have no expectation of privacy in our trash.

Question 2:

The case that stood out to me the most was Katz v. United States because of the court’s final decision. I didn’t expect the Fourth Amendment to apply in this case, because the phone booth is a public space.

1. carroll and another person were smuggling alcohol police saw him driving pulled him over and searched him. the police had no warrant. carroll said that the warrantless search violated his 4th amendment rights. the court disagreed with carroll. they said the search was ok because the fact the car can be moved means that evidence can be lost if it moves.

2. a car was pulled over for a faulty break light and the police saw a syringe in the drivers pocket. the driver admitted to taking drugs. the police then asked the driver and passengers to leave the vehicle and searched the driver ffinding drugs in her purse. the court said that the warrentless search of her purse was not violating her 4th amendment rights

3. the police knew gant had a suspended license and saw him drive into his home then arrested him for driving with a suspended license. they then searched his car. they found a gun and drugs with no intent to sell. gant argued that since he was already safe in the back of a cop car, there was no reason to search his car, and it violated his 4th amendment rights. The court agreed with gant and found the search was a violation of his 4th amendment rights. The police may search a car after an arrest of a recent occupant only if the officers have a reasonable belief that the evidence of the offense can be found in the vehicle.

1. Chimel v. California - The police went to Chimel's home for a coin shop burglary. The police had in fact found evidence that he did commit the coin burglary yet they didn't have a warrant so the evidence was not able to be used against him in court. The Court had agreed that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

2. Bail v. Louisiana - The police had a warrant to arrest Bail. Before they had arrested him, they had seen him interacting with known narcotics. They arrested him on his porch and went inside to search and had found drugs. Bail said in his trial that their search of his home was against his fourth amendment rights because, while Bail was on his property, he was not in the home therefore the police didn't have a right to search the home.

3. Payton v. New York - A New York state statute gave the police permission to search the home without warrants for people who had been believed to have committed felonies. The court found that such a search was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the intention to find an alleged felon. Yet the Court did point out that an arrest warrant would've given the police the right to enter the home.

We thought that the most interesting case was Chimel v. California because the case had a lot more detail and had better explained why they had arrested him and what he had actually done. The fact that they had also found very clear evidence had helped us get a better understanding of the case of what happens when you search without a warrant, while you find the evidence, it won't matter because you didn't get it lawfully.

Case 1: Police came to Chimel's home, spoke to his wife and were allowed into Chimel's Home by his wife. The officers then proceeded to arrest Chimel when he came home and asked to search his home, Chimel denied. The police searched his home anyway and found evidence of the burglary. They tried to use the evidence against him in court but it was deemed to be illegally acquired and they couldn't use it against him.

Case 2: Police had a warrant to arrest Vale and were watching Vale's home. The police witnessed Vale interact with and do what looked like a drug deal with a known addict. The police arrested Vale on his porch and searched his home, finding narcotics in Vale's room. Vale claimed that the police carried out a warrantless search of his home violated his fourth amendment right, and the court agreed with Vale, ruling that in order for a search to be connected to an arrest they must be conducted in the same area, and the arrest was conducted on Vale's porch, not in his home.

Case 3: A New York Statue allowed police to enter homes to search for suspected criminals without a warrant. The statue was challenged on the basis that it violated people's fourth amendment rights. The court agreed that the statue violated people's fourth amendment rights. The court pointed out that an arrest warrant would allow police to enter homes.

The case we thought stood out the most was case 2, because despite the arrest taking place on Vale's property, the court ruled that the police were not justified to search Vale's home because they arrested Vale on their porch.

chimel V California-chimel arrested in house for burglary of coins so police searched whole house and found more evidence that he was guilty of burglary. chimel went to court and said this violated my 4th amendment rights. judge agreed and said the evidence was gathered unlawfully, because they werent in the imediate reach of chimel

vale v Louisiana- vale was seen selling drugs and he was arrested on his porch the police searched his home but they un lawfully searched his home because he was arrested outside of his property, and they didnt have a warrant

Payton V New York- police used to be allowed to go into homes without a warrant but it violated peoples 4th amendment. this problem went to court and agreed to fix it

chimel V california stood out the most to us because they couldnt search the whole house without a warrant even though he was arrested in the house.

1. Case 1: The principal searched his bag and found drugs and marijuana. The search was legal because they had a reasonable suspicion that she was using drugs.

   Case 2: There was a new rule implemented about drug testing student athletes, and parents would sign a consent form. And if they weren't signed, the student wouldn't be allowed to play, and Acton wanted to play, but his parents wouldn't sign the consent form.

   Case 3: A 13 year old was accused of selling strengthinized ibuprofen to students. When the principal got an anonymous tip that someone was selling the ibuprofen. They called her into the office and made her strip down to her underwear to prove that she didn't have anything on her. The court said that it was an extremely unreasonable level of search, especially on a minor.

2. Case 3 stood out to me the most because of the fact that they made a young girl strip down because they got a tip that she was selling drugs. That's extremely unprofessional, and that kind of search was not necessary whatsoever, and there are many different ways she could have been searched, but the way they did it was absolutely horrible.

Case two: Wyoming v. Houghton, the police pulled over a car for a faulty break light. The police saw a syringe in the car and questioned the driver, he admitted to using drugs. Houghton(the passenger) was asked to get out of the car and she was searched. The police found a syringe, filled with drugs, in her purse. The court said that since they were all in the same car together they are most likely doing the same activities as each other that could injury the police, making it ok to do a search without a warrant.

Case three: Arizona v. Gant, Gant had an interaction with the police so they knew he had a suspended licences. The police were at Gant's friends house and Gant pulled up in his car and parked in his friends driveway. The police arrested Gant and then searched his car, where they found a gun and drugs. The court said that searching Gant's car was a violation of his 4th amendment rights because he was already in the back of the police car in handcuffs. Also because they had no reasonable belief that there was evidence of the crime he committed in the car.

The case that stood out to us the most is the 2nd one because when they searched Houghton it wasn't because they had reasonable suspicion for her, it was for the driver. Also because it changed to the police searching Houghton, not the car.

The Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is most strictly applied to the privacy of one's home. However, police are permitted to conduct limited searches without a warrant when they have lawfully arrested a person. The scope of this exception, known as a "search incident to arrest," was dramatically narrowed and clearly defined by the Supreme Court in the 1969 landmark case, Chimel v. California.

The case centered on Ted Chimel, who was arrested in his home for the burglary of a coin shop. Upon arresting him, police officers, without obtaining a search warrant, proceeded to search his entire three-bedroom house, including the attic, garage, and workshop. During this extensive search, they found evidence that was later used to convict him. Chimel argued that the search went far beyond what was necessary and violated his constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court agreed with Chimel, ruling that the search was unconstitutional. The Court recognized two justifications for allowing a warrantless search incident to arrest: ensuring officer safety by removing any weapons the arrestee might use, and preventing the destruction of evidence. The Court held that these goals only justify a search of the area within the immediate control of the arrested person—the area into which they might reach to grab a weapon or to destroy evidence.

By striking down the broad search of Chimel’s entire house, the Court established a critical precedent. The Chimel rule ensures that a lawful arrest is not used as a pretext to conduct a wide-ranging, exploratory search of a private residence. It firmly draws a physical boundary around the search, reinforcing that the warrant requirement remains the primary protection for the sanctity of the home. Vale v. Louisiana: When Exigency Must Be Present

Following the restrictions set in Chimel, the Supreme Court next addressed whether an arrest outside a residence could justify a warrantless search inside the house.

2. In Vale v. Louisiana (1970), police observed Vale selling narcotics on his front steps and immediately arrested him there. They then entered and searched his home without a warrant, claiming that the warrantless entry was necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence. The Supreme Court rejected this claim. The Court ruled that because Vale was arrested outside, the police could not claim an exigent circumstance (emergency) justifying the warrantless search inside the home unless they could prove that evidence was genuinely about to be destroyed or that there was immediate danger. The simple fact that narcotics were sold nearby did not override the fundamental Fourth Amendment requirement for a search warrant. Vale clarified that police must prove a genuine emergency and cannot create one to bypass judicial authorization.