Media Search:



Fourth amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia …

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "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." Ultimately, these words endeavor to protect two fundamental liberty interests - the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary invasions.

A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society considers reasonable is infringed by a governmental employee or by an agent of the government. Private individuals who are not acting in either capacity are exempt from the Fourth Amendment prohibitions.

A seizure refers to the interference with an individual's possessory interest in property. To meet the definition of an unreasonable seizure, the property's owner must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the items seized. A person is seized when law enforcement personnel use physical force to restrain the person if a reasonable person in the same or a similar situation would not feel free to leave the situation. The previous owner of abandoned property cannot allege an unreasonable seizure of that abandoned property. Abandoned property is property left behind by its owner in a manner in which the owner abandons the possessory interest in the property and no longer retains a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the search.

The prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures particularly affects the work of law enforcement personnel by restricting the actions that they may take in performing a criminal investigation; however, the ban also disallows unreasonable searches and seizures in the civil litigation context. Law enforcement may only conduct a search if individualized suspicion motivates the search. The Fourth Amendment prohibits generalized searches, unless extraordinary circumstances place the general public in danger.

To sue regarding an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the plaintiff must have standing. Standing with respect to Fourth Amendment violations requires that the plaintiff have had a legitimate expectation of privacy at the searched location. A legitimate expectation of privacy must meet both the subjective and objective tests of reasonableness. The subjective test requires that the plaintiff actually and genuinely expected privacy, and the objective test requires that given the circumstances, a reasonable person in the same or a similar situation would have expected privacy as well.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies the Fourth Amendment's provisions against the states as well as the federal government. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

Courts ordinarily suppress evidence obtained during an unreasonable search or seizure and offered against the accused. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). This rule, known as the exclusionary rule, applies equally to both the investigatory and accusatory stages of a criminal prosecution.

In order to avoid illegally searching or seizing the property of a suspect, law enforcement personnel typically obtain search warrants. To obtain a search warrant, law enforcement must show probable cause, must support the showing by oath or affirmation, and must describe in particularity the place they will search and the items they will seize. A judge can find probable cause only be examining the totality of the circumstances.

Different types of warrants exist. A knock-and-announce warrant requires law enforcement personnel to knock on the door of a residence and announce their identity before entering, giving the owner or occupier an opportunity to answer the door. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that law enforcement's failure to knock or announce when in possession of a knock-and-announce warrant does not necessitate use of the exclusionary rule. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006).

No knock warrants allow law enforcement personnel to enter a building or home without announcing their presence and without knocking on the door first. Courts reserve these warrants for situations in which a building's owner or occupier could destroy the sought-after evidence by the time law enforcement waits for the owner or occupier to open the door.

See more here:

Fourth amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ...

Fourth Amendment Blog

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Fourth Amendment consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact / The Book Search and seizure law consulting http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit D.C. Circuit FDsys: Many district courts FDsys: Many federal courts FDsys: Other Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General's site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Curiae (Yale Law) Oyez Project (NWU) "On the Docket"Medill S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx Lexis.com $ Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ Findlaw.com Findlaw.com (4th Amd) Westlaw.com $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 http://www.fd.org FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy Foundation Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." Me

"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government." Shemaya, in the Thalmud

See original here:

Fourth Amendment Blog

Paramedic accuses officials of Fourth Amendment violation

Paramedic accuses officials of Fourth Amendment violation

By Amanda Taylor

April 14th, 2014 @ 9:35pm

SALT LAKE CITY A United Fire Authority employee has filed a motion to suppress evidence he believes was unlawfully gathered and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Paramedic Ryan Pyle was charged with prescription fraud after an investigation into missing morphine led a Cottonwood Heights police detective to search medical records as part of his investigation.

Nobody was ever charged with the theft of the morphine, legal director of the ACLU of Utah John Mejia said. That was not the basis for the charges against that paramedic. He was charged with suspected prescription fraud.

Last year, several vials of morphine in ambulances based at three fire stations were found empty. United Fire Authority employees who made this discovery called the police. A Cottonwood Heights Police Department detective searched prescription histories of UFA employees, trying to make a connection.

The detective logged into the Utah controlled substances database to download prescription histories of all 480 UFA employees. Utah does not require police to get a warrant before accessing this sensitive health data. He then identified four people whom he deemed dependent on opioid (psychoactive chemicals such as morphine or other opiates) painkillers, and had them charged with prescription fraud.

The evidence gathered against this paramedic should be excluded from the proceedings, and if this evidence is excluded they have no case, Mejia said. The Fourth Amendment requires individualized suspicion that somebody is committing a crime. Had the investigator developed some sort of suspicion against any particular firefighter and then sought a warrant and then gone after this private, sensitive medical information in that way, we might not be here because thats the way the Fourth Amendment is supposed to work.

Mejia said that he suspects all employees, including receptionists and others who would not have a chance to access the morphine, had their records accessed and combed over during the investigation.

See the original post:

Paramedic accuses officials of Fourth Amendment violation

wifi passwords free software for wifi password hacking and best application verified [WORKING] – Video


wifi passwords free software for wifi password hacking and best application verified [WORKING]
http://www.hackingtoolforwifi.blogspot.com/ Looking for wifi passwords? I #39;ve got a site telling you exactly wifi passwords. Wireless hot-spots (commonly know...

By: wifipasswordhack

See more here:
wifi passwords free software for wifi password hacking and best application verified [WORKING] - Video

free internet free software for wifi password hacking and best application verified [WORKING] – Video


free internet free software for wifi password hacking and best application verified [WORKING]
http://www.hackingtoolforwifi.blogspot.com/ Looking for free internet? I #39;ve got a site telling you exactly free internet. Wireless hot-spots (commonly known ...

By: wifipasswordhack

Continued here:
free internet free software for wifi password hacking and best application verified [WORKING] - Video