Mediaboss Marketing

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonablein the eyes of the law,is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure.Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search;Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946) If the search is incident to a lawful arrest;United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances;Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) If the items are in plain view;Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances. New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),

An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot. Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).

An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).

Excerpt from:
What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? - United States Courts

From the Sixth Circuit federal court of appeals decision today in Northrup v. Toledo Police Dept.:

On a midsummer evening, Shawn and Denise Northrup went for a neighborhood walk with their daughter, grandson, and dog. Apparently in a happy-go-lucky mood, Shawn wore a t-shirt reading, This Is The Shirt I Wear When I Dont Care. Shawn carried a cell phone, which he holstered on his hip next to a black semiautomatic handgun.

A passing motorcyclist stopped to complain about Shawns visible firearm. The stranger, Alan Rose, yelled, [Y]ou cant walk around with a gun like that! But [O]pen carry is legal in Ohio! Denise responded. As the Northrups walked away, Denise and Rose exchanged increasingly unprintable words until he was out of view (and earshot).

Rose called 911, reporting that a guy walking down the street with his dog was carrying a gun out in the open.

The police eventually arrived, ordered Northrup to stop, demanded that he turn over the gun, handcuffed him, and kept him handcuffed in a police car for 30 minutes. Eventually, they let him go, and all charges were dropped. Northrup sued, and the Sixth Circuit allowed the case to go forward:

While open-carry laws may put police officers (and some motorcyclists) in awkward situations from time to time, the Ohio legislature has decided its citizens may be entrusted with firearms on public streets. Ohio Rev. Code 9.68, 2923.125. The Toledo Police Department has no authority to disregard this decision not to mention the protections of the Fourth Amendment by detaining every gunman who lawfully possesses a firearm. And it has long been clearly established that an officer needs evidence of criminality or dangerousness before he may detain and disarm a law-abiding citizen. We thus affirm the district courts conclusion that, after reading the factual inferences in the record in Northrups favor, Officer Bright could not reasonably suspect that Northrup needed to be disarmed.

The police had also initially suggested that Northrup was guilty of the Ohio crime of causing panic, but the court pointed out this wasnt so (at least under Northrups version of the facts). Indeed, the Ohio causing panic statute provides,

No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;

(2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence;

Read the original:
The Fourth Amendment and open carry of guns (where such ...

DES MOINES Iowa senators sent Gov. Terry Branstad a bill Tuesday designed to balance Iowans constitutional rights at funerals or memorial services.

House File 558 expands the level of privacy granted under the Fourth Amendment to grieve for loved ones, soldiers or civilians, backers say.

The bill, which won Iowa Senate support by a 50-0 vote, would establish a 1,000-foot buffer between funerals and protesters for one hour before and after the funeral while balancing free speech rights of participants and onlookers.

The bill is a response to demonstrations by members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. Church members have shown up at military funerals say that God will turn his back on a nation that sanctions abortion, same-sex marriage and other abominations. The death of soldiers, according to Westboro, is Gods punishment for America abandoning him.

Families and friends who are grieving the loss of a loved one should not have to be subject to a barrage of hateful yelling and signs while theyre honoring and remembering the person they have lost, said Sen. Kevin Kinney, D-Oxford, the bills floor manager.

The bill is based on legislation that has been upheld by courts in Nebraska, Missouri and Minnesota, supporters say.

Actions such as shouting homophobic slurs and desecrating the U.S. flag at military funerals are reprehensible, said Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, noting that he personally finds individuals who engage in such actions to be despicable. But he told his Senate colleagues its exactly for those reasons that their First Amendment rights of expression need to be zealously defended. The First Amendment isnt about protecting popular speech.

At the same time, he said, it is not just one group whose constitutional rights are at issue, noting that people who participate in a funeral or a memorial service are exercising their freedom of expression and in many cases their religious freedom while celebrating a life or mourning a loss.

When those rights collide, Quirmbach said, some distance, some separation is appropriate. The right to free speech does not include the right to shout down someone elses speech. I think that this bill provides appropriate separation so that each may be able to express their views under our Constitution.

Read this article:
Iowa Senate OKs bill addressing funeral protests

CORRUPT FLORIDA COPS DONT CARE ABOUT YOURE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
CORRUPT FLORIDA COPS DONT CARE ABOUT YOURE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS THE ILLEGALY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ARE RECORDING YOURE CELL PHONE ...

By: LIVEFREE ORDIE

Continued here:
CORRUPT FLORIDA COPS DONT CARE ABOUT YOURE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS - Video

Probable Cause And The Fourth Amendment

By: F

Go here to see the original:
Probable Cause And The Fourth Amendment - Video