Mediaboss Marketing

The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses against unreasonable searches, and is an important right. Americans want to feel safe in their homes and do not want police constantly involved in their daily lives. On the other hand, Americans want to be safe from crime and terrorism. There is a difficult and controversial balance between these two perspectives, and there has been since this nation was founded. Let us look at three important cases dealing with Fourth Amendment issues.

In the 1961 case, Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court decided that any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment would be deemed inadmissible in court. Dollree Mapp was suspected of hiding a bombing suspect. Police knocked at her door, but she did not answer. Eventually, police forced their way in. Once they breached the doorway, Dollree demanded to see their warrant. She placed the warrant in her bra. The warrant was destroyed when the police tried to retrieve it. The police found pornography in the home (a crime in that archaic time) and charged Mapp with possession of lewd material. The prosecuting attorney did not have the warrant to present as evidence. Ohio convicted Mapp, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and ruled any evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible.

The 1967 Supreme Court case Katz v. United States is another major fourth amendment case. Charles Katz sent illegal betting wagers through a public pay phone booth. The FBI recorded his calls, and the recordings were used as evidence against him in trial. The Supreme Court decided that this evidence was inadmissible as Katz believed he has a reasonable expectation of privacy when making the phone calls. The Supreme Court dictated that any conversation made with a reasonable expectation of privacy is protected under the Fourth Amendment and that wiretapping constitutes a search.

Terry v. Ohio is a 1968 Supreme Court decision upholding stop-and-frisk policing. John Terry and two other men were walking around suspiciously in front of a building. A police officer approached them and found a pistol in Terrys pocket. He ordered the three men inside the building and patted them down. He found a weapon on one of the other men. Terry and his armed friend were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The Supreme Court ruled that Terrys search was reasonable and justified by the need to protect the police and others nearby. Since this case, there have been many other cases addressing the issue of when it is okay for an officer to search a suspect.

The Fourth Amendment is an important protection. If you feel your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, you need effective legal representation. Many cases hinge on Fourth Amendment rights being handled properly. The police have a duty to behave by the standards set by the constitution, but sometimes they do not always follow the rules. The De Bruin Law Firm has experience helping people in difficult situations. Let us help you with your case, contact Greenville Defense Attorney Aaron De Bruin about your case today.

View original post here:
Landmark Fourth Amendment Cases | Criminal Defense Attorney

Courts are frequently called upon to apply the Fourth Amendments prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures to police procedures. Marylands Court of Special Appeals this week reviewed whether the use of fare inspections on a light rail train violated the Fourth Amendment in a case called Kenneth Carter v. State of Maryland.

The opinion indicates that Maryland Transit Authority police gathered on the platform of a Baltimore light rail station, for the purpose of doing a fare inspection to see if passengers had paid for their fare. There was no evidence of any signs posted in the stations that such fare sweeps may be done. Failure to pay the fare is a crime subject to a $50 fine. When the train pulled into the station, an officer entered each train and announced that each passenger had to show their ticket proving they had paid the fare.

Carter approached an officer and admitted he had no ticket, and was directed to another officer on the platform who obtained his identification. A record check showed a possible warrant outstanding for Carter, who then tried to flee and was tackled. During the melee the police found that Carter had a gun, and it turned out he was a convicted felon. At trial, defendants motion to suppress evidence because of an illegal detention was denied, and he was convicted of firearms offenses and resisting arrest.

The appellate Court noted that in determining whether an investigatory detention by police had occurred, it would look at such factors as the use or show of force or authority by the police so that a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave or refuse to answer questions. Here, the appellate Court found that by announcing to all passengers that they could not leave the train until producing proof of fare payment, Carter had in fact been detained even before he admitted he had no ticket.

Since one of the officers at trial admitted that they used fare checks as a means of enforcing outstanding warrants, the appellate Court declared this police misconduct in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the motion to suppress evidence should have been granted, and the convictions were reversed.

Thomas Patrick Ryan is a partner in the Rockville law firm of McCarthy Wilson, which specializes in civil litigation.

Post Views: 228

See more here:
Fare Inspections and the Fourth Amendment - Montgomery County Sentinel

U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police may forcibly and warrantlessly carry out blood draws on unconscious drivers suspected of drunk driving.

The Courts 5-4 decision in Mitchell v. State of Wisconsin found that an unconscious driver suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol constitutes an emergency situation that allows police to ignore the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement and draw blood from that suspect without consent or a warrant, regardless of whether there is an opportunity to obtain a warrant.

In an amicus brief filed in the case, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had argued that implied consent laws, which suggest that merely driving on a state-owned road implies that a person has consented to police sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood draws, should not be used as a means of allowing police to bypass fundamental Fourth Amendment protections for privacy and bodily integrity.

All of those freedoms we cherish the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will, said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People.

What this ruling makes clear is that our so-called Fourth Amendment rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the governments ongoing power grabs.

In May 2013, the Sheboygan, WI, police received a call that Gerald Mitchell was in distress. Mitchell had driven his van to the shore of Lake Michigan and consumed 40 pills and a mixture of vodka and soda.

Police found Mitchell walking unsteadily along the lake, although his van was parked elsewhere. Mitchell was given a roadside sobriety test, which showed that he had a blood-alcohol concentration of .24. He was taken into custody and driven to the police station where he was placed in a holding cell.

While in the cell, Mitchell began to fall asleep or pass out, although he could be roused if stimulated.

Wanting another test of Mitchells blood-alcohol level but unsure if Mitchell could cooperate with a breath test, police took Mitchell to a hospital to have his blood drawn and tested.

Mitchell was unconscious upon arriving at the hospital. Police then read an unconscious Mitchell his rights under Wisconsins implied consent law, including his right to refuse to submit to a blood or breath test, and then proceeded to have a hospital technician forcibly draw his blood.

Upon being prosecuted for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, Mitchell moved to suppress the blood test results on the ground that his blood was taken without a warrant or exigent circumstances.

After losing in the Wisconsin state courts, Mitchell appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the forced blood draws violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Although the Supreme Court has previously ruled that forced, warrantless blood draws are unconstitutional, it justified the blood draw in Mitchell as dependent on exigent circumstances. Twenty-eight states have laws similar to Wisconsins implied consent law.

The Supreme Courts opinion and The Rutherford Institutes amicus brief in Mitchell v. State of Wisconsin are available at http://www.rutherford.org. Affiliate attorneys D. Alicia Hickok, Mark Taticchi, D. Alexander Harrell, and Matthew C. Sapp of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in Philadelphia and Dallas assisted The Rutherford Institute and CATO in presenting its arguments.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated.

Read the original here:
SCOTUS rules in favor of warrantless blood draw - Overton County News

Imagine the RI State Veterinarian and the RI SPCA demanding to enter your home without a search warrant, and if you denied them access, being fined $350 per day until they obtained a search warrant.

Just such legislation, House Bill No. 5297, was introduced in the last General Assembly session. It would have taken your Fourth Amendment rights away.

Opposing the legislation was the Defenders of Animals Inc., and the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union. The RI ACLU stated: We do not believe the General Assembly can give the DEM, much less a private entity, the power to enter peoples homes based on a written complaint raising a vague concern about an animals care or welfare.

Moreover, the legislation was disguised as an attempt to target unlicensed rescuers; however, the wording included any person who renders a service to any animal.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on Dec. 15, 1791. It deals with protecting people from the searching of their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants.

The RI DEM and the RISPCA have no business taking that protection away nor should elected officials ever again consider such a proposal.

Dennis Tabella

The writer is director of Defenders of Animals Inc.

Follow this link:
Letter: Animal abuse bill was unconstitutional | Opinion - The Independent

People get so upset when they hear Dallas-Fort Worth is using facial recognition technology for flights, yet at the same time, they are Snapchatting their face with reindeer antlers, Tuma said. Its the same technology and were doing it all day on Snapchat, but we freak out when the government does it.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Part of the publics consternation over law enforcement probing peoples digital lives and the relative ease with which they are allowed to do so is the lack of knowledge surrounding court rulings and the Fourth Amendment, according to one criminal justice expert.

The evolution of law enforcements authority in this area may surprise people, said Christopher Hill, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Oklahoma whose research areas include criminology, criminal justice and juvenile justice.

Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have been dealing with the application of the Fourth Amendment since at least 1914 in a case called Weeks v. U.S., Hill said. From brief stop and frisk encounters, to searches and seizures at public schools, there has been a lot of court activity surrounding police power and the Fourth Amendment.

Hill pointed to three other notable cases that illuminate that activity.

In a 1998 appeal case for an insider securities trading conviction United States v. Smith the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided evidentiary issues involving the illegal interception of voicemail.

The court said in its ruling that the intersection of two laws the 1968 Wiretap Act and the 1986 Stored Communications Act is a complex, often convoluted area of the law. This case turns, at least in part, on issues at the very heart of that intersection.

(Story continued below...)

More here:
If it's in writing, don't think it's a secret - Oklahoman.com