https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt Search and Arrest en-us 2022-01-11 17:50:55 UTC 2024-07-21 05:45:56 UTC hello@padlet.com 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1987172634 Facts of The Case:
An informant informed the police on July 28, 2005, that he had purchased six grams of cocaine from an individual who went by "Polo". The informant provided the information to where Polo was situated and led the police in an investigation. Officer Richard Schneider got a warrant to search the apartment where he was told Polo lived in. That same night, while detectives where on surveillance, they witnessed two men walk out of the apartment. They followed the men and pulled them over a mile away from the apartment. After patting down the two men, they handcuffed them and informed the men that they where being detained but not arrested. They found keys on one of the men and a drivers license which entailed where they lived. The officers then drove over to the address listed and used the keys to access the apartment. When they where in, the officers found drugs and a gun in plain sight. Police proceeded to arrest both men and seize their drugs and guns. This entire time, the officers where trying to obtain a warrant and the arrest happened before the warrant could be obtained.

Question:
Did officers lawfully arrest the men before a search warrant could be issued. Could they detain The men leaving the immediate area of his apartment before they executed the warrant?

Verdict:
Supreme Courts verdict was 6 to 3 in favor of Bailey

The verdict was that no, they did not. Because the warrant had not been issued before they detained the men, they did not legally arrest the men. They directly violated the fourth amendment.

Link: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-770]]> 2022-01-12 00:12:18 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1987172634 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1987189250 2022-01-12 00:30:27 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1987189250 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1987192577 2022-01-12 00:33:40 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1987192577 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988857887 2022-01-12 18:20:43 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988857887 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988872333 2022-01-12 18:28:05 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988872333 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988907847 2022-01-12 18:45:58 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988907847 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988909772 2022-01-12 18:47:02 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988909772 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988920822 2022-01-12 18:52:40 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988920822 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988926705 2022-01-12 18:55:52 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1988926705 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1989306334 Facts of The Case:
Lemon Johnson was sitting in the backseat of a vehicle when officers stopped the car. They found that the license of the car had a "mandatory insurance suspension". That was the reason the officers stopped the car. But, they then began asking questions to the individuals in the car about the town's recent gang activity. Entirely because of limited evidence and the car having a police scanner, the officers began to search the car. The officers offered for Johnson to leave the car but the decision on Johnsons part was voluntary. After searching, officers obtained an illegally owned handgun and small amounts of marijuana. Johnson was then detained. Johnson argues in court that the officers unlawfully searched the car and that there was no reason for them to have had to. 

Question:
Did officers violate the fourth amendment by searching and seizing the belongings of Johnson?

Verdict:
Supreme Court's verdict was unanimous in favor of Arizona.

They ended up deciding that the officers did not violate the fourth amendment by searching the car. Traffic stops can be conducted and the officers can do what they will with the car when it does come down to it. 

Link: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-1122]]> 2022-01-13 00:18:39 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1989306334 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1989320396 No, as a whole I do not personally believe that it is outdated. But that doesn't mean that the system itself isn't inherently flawed. There are some serious issues with the loopholes officers can take with search and seizure. I think they should alter it so that even if their rights where violated, they should still endure punishment for their crimes. ]]> 2022-01-13 00:32:32 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1989320396 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1989334742 Case Facts:
13 year old Savana Redding was escorted to the administrative office of her school after the Principal found her daily planner full of knives and other contraband. She confessed to owning the planner but she had lent her planner to her friend. The principal then produced pain medication and claimed that it was hers. She denied owning them but the principal said he had reports of students saying that she was dealing them. Again, she denied all claims but she let them search her belongings. They found nothing but insisted on a strip search. She was led into the nurses office where two female administrators patted her down and searched all her clothes. They found nothing but then made her take off her undergarments to check there as well. There was absolutely nothing found and they let her off the hook. Redding's mother sued the school.

The Verdict:
Court decided that it violated Savana's fourth amendment rights. It is legal for the school to strip her OUTER clothing but not her undergarments. ]]> 2022-01-13 00:47:44 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1989334742 3554451 https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1990934488 Edward Caniglia’s wife called police after staying the night at a hotel. she called her husband multiple times and he didn’t pick up. The night before, Edward had pulled forward a gun and had asked his wife to shoot him and “end it”. His wife then called the police to conduct a wellness check and police came into the house to search. They seized Caniglia’s gun and left premises. Later, lower courts determined it to not be a violation of his rights, stating that they did it for a well ness check and nothing more. Even later, when the case was brought to the supreme courts, they determined that it was in fact a violation of his rights and Edward should feel safe in his home to do what he wanted and that the police illegally seized his firearms. Thay had no warrant.]]> 2022-01-13 18:03:00 UTC https://padlet.com/3554451/wckc6b9zgmpvxkxt/wish/1990934488