Freedom from Unreasonable search and seizure

By Binnie Mckillip

Sources!!

• http://tinyurl.com/oe29qlp
• http://tinyurl.com/gp7762s
• http://tinyurl.com/j89kv6u
• http://tinyurl.com/gt9nf6p
• https://www.cars.com/
• https://civilrightsandwrongs.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/149359661_51d289cec2-1.jpg
• http://www.austin-legal.net/tag/riley-v-california/
• https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/04/21/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-todays-supreme-court-ruling-on-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-traffic-stops/

Landmark court case

• Riley v. California (2014)

4th Amendment of U.S. Constitution

Riley v. California in 2014 was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional. The case arose from a split among state and federal courts over the cell phone search incident to arrest (SITA) doctrine. The Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits had ruled that officers can search cell phones incident to arrest under various standards. That rule was followed by the Supreme Courts of Georgia, Massachusetts, and California. Other courts in the First Circuit and the Supreme Courts of Florida and Ohio disagreed.

The 4th amendment is associated with protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Understanding the freedom

"[t]he 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."

Freedom from Unreasonable search and seizure

The description of the freedom is the search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court. If the enforcement officer does not have permission to search, have a search warrant, they cannot search and/or seizure their premises.

Current Court Case

His attorney's response

“Our Fourth Amendment requires that before our police do surveillance, touch you, search your car or your home, they have to have probable cause, which means evidence of criminality,” he says. “The policeman had no evidence here. Mr. Rodriguez went to court, fought it all the way up, and lost all the way about suppressing the evidence.”

Dennys Rodriguez and his passenger were stopped by police in Nebraska for driving onto a median. An officer gave him a warning ticket, but asked to do a vehicle search. Rodriguez refused, but was ordered out of his vehicle while the officer conducted a search using a canine dog. The dog found methamphetamine, and the two occupants of the vehicle were arrested. The Supreme Court ruled that police may not extend the time needed to conduct an ordinary traffic stop or examine occupants with a drug-detecting dog unless they have specific reasons to believe the car was carrying contraband. As the attorney explains, Rodriguez didn't consent to the search - but the officer searched anyway. Rodriguez eventually won the decision.

Application of Protection from unreasonable search and seizure that could happen to me

In this video the officers did not have a warrant nor permission to search their house, therefor the officers could not, by law, search and/or seizure their house.