Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

By: Callie Hofeditz and Ainsley Adams

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "By: Callie Hofeditz and Ainsley Adams"— Presentation transcript:

1 By: Callie Hofeditz and Ainsley Adams
Search and Seizure By: Callie Hofeditz and Ainsley Adams

2 The 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, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

3 The History of the Fourth Amendment
Originated from English common law Inspired by three cases from the 1760s

4 Wilkes v Wood and Entick v Carrington
Two mens' houses searched by officers for "speaking out against the King" Both sued for damages and won

5 Writs of Assistance Allowed custom's officers to search any place they were suspicious of Merchants disagreed with these and sued. James Otis represented and lost

6 10 Cases Mapp v Ohio (1961) New York v Harris (1984)
New Jersey v TLO (1985) Winston v Lee (1985) Drayton v United States Stafford Unified School District v Redding (2009) Arizona v Gant (2009) Patino v Rhode Island (2009)

7 Detailed Cases Mapp v Ohio (1961) Winston v Lee (1985)
Stafford Unified School District v Redding (2009) Patino v Rhode Island (2009) Strieff v Utah (2016)

8 Mapp v Ohio (1961) Boxing promoter, Don King's house was bombed
Main suspect: Virgil Ogletree, who was said to be hiding at Dollree Mapp's house Police surrounded her house and demanded to be let in, but she wouldn't, unless they provided a warrant, so they forced their way in. When Mapp demanded a warrant, they showed her a piece of paper, without allowing her to read it, so she shoved it down her shirt. The police then handcuffed her to her bed and searched her house for several hours. They found Virgil Ogletree, alone with several other illegal materials. She was found guilty of possessing these materials and sentenced to 7 years in prison.

9 Mapp v Ohio (cont.) Mapp's lawyer filed for an appeal, due to the fact that the police never actually had a warrant for the search The court voted 6-3 in favor of Mapp, and her conviction was overturned.

10 Winston v Lee Ralph Watkinson is approached by a dark figure carrying a firearm Watkinson pulled out his own weapon and the two fired at each other Perpetrator manages to run away 20 minutes later Rudolph Lee Jr is found 8 blocks away with a bullet wound in his left side of his chest Immediately identified by Watkinson Claimed he was robbed and shot police said that he Must have surgery to get the bullet removed and that it was minimally invasive further x rays proved this to be false and days before the surgery was scheduled the supreme court was presented with the case

11 Winston v Lee (cont.) Supreme court came to a unanimous decision that this was a violation of his 4th amendment right and the surgery did not go through

12 Stafford School District v Redding
13 y/o girl S. Redding Male student said M. Glines gave him perscription grade ibuprofen Searched M and found more pills and weapons Mclaimed weapons in bag belonges to SR SR is strip searched by nurse and nothing was found supreme court voted 8-1 that the search was unconstitutional

13 Patino v Rhode Island (2009)
Mother calls boy after she finds him unresponsive and not breathing. He is taken to the hospital, where he later died. Police come to investigate house for clues to what happened. Officer goes through the mother's phone and find several texts with her boyfriend, Michael Patino, admitting that he heavily beat the child the night before. Patino was accused of murdering the boy, most of the case being built off the text messages from the phone. Trial court ruled that the texts were not admissible in court, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision and ruled that since the texts were not on his phone, he did not have an expected right to privacy of them.

14 Strieff v Utah (2016) Officer in area investigating anonymous tip about drug activity in the area. Officer sees Edward Strieff leaving a house in the area and stops him and discovers a warrant for his arrest. He decides to search him and discovers a pipe and methamphetamine on him. The trial court said the evidence was inadmissable, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision and said the evidence was admissable with a 5-3 vote.

15 Brief Cases New Jersey v TLO (1985) Drayton v United States (2002)
California v Ciraolo (1986) Arizona v Gant (2009) New York v Harris (1984)

16 New York v Harris Harris admits to the murder of Thelma staton
was brought in without arrest warrant Officer videoed an incriminating interview even though he was asked to stop Trial court suppressed the video under violation of the 4th amendment.

17 Arizona v Gant Gant arrested for suspended license
Car searched and found small bag of cocaine as well as a gun SCOTUS 5-4

18 Drayton v United States (2002)
Two officers stopped a bus for a routine drug and weapons search, where people have a right to not cooperate. They asked two men sitting together if they could search them and both men agreed. They found four packages of cocaine on both of the men. The men moved to suppress the evidence based on the fact that they were not told by the officers that they were allowed to not cooperate. The Supreme Court ruled that the officers to not have to advise passengers of their right to decline searches.

19 New Jersey v TLO TLO was a 14 y/o girl caught smoking cigarettes in school bathrooms. denied all knowledge purse was searched money, weed, rolling papers, little plastic baggies were found SCOTUS ruled in favor of TLO 5-4

20 California v Ciraolo (1986)
After an anonymous tip, police were led to believe that Dante Ciraolo was growing marijuana in his backyard. Police decided to send and airplane over his house and take pictures of his backyard. After observing marijuana plants in his backyard, a search warrant was granted. Ciraola motioned to supress the evidence, saying that an aerial observation violated his fourth amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that it was not a violation of the fourth amendment, because it was visible to the naked eye.

21 Bibliography https://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-1334
summary-new-jersey-v-tlo landmarks/new-jersey-v-tlo-podcast


Download ppt "By: Callie Hofeditz and Ainsley Adams"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google