Facts - Ms. Thrower's Social Studies Website



Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure CasesDirections: Read each scenario and then write a short summary of how you THINK SCOTUS ruled in the case in the space following “Decision?”. When finished, compare your predictions with the real decisions revealed at the bottom. 1-Exclusionary Rule*(Mapp vs. Ohio)The case arose in 1957 when police in Cleveland forcibly entered the home of Dollree Mapp and conducted an apparently warrantless search for a bombing suspect. Although no suspect was found, officers did discover certain allegedly “lewd and lascivious” books and pictures, the possession of which was prohibited under Ohio state law. Mapp was convicted of violating the law on the basis of this evidence. Hearing the case on appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized the unlawfulness of the search but upheld the?conviction?on the grounds that?Wolf?had established that the states were not required to?abide?by the exclusionary rule. (not to be confused with Weeks v. United States in 1914, saying that the “fruit of the poisonous tree” exclusionary rule applies to the federal government) The Supreme Court granted?certiorari, and oral arguments were heard on March 29, 1961. Would they uphold or overturn the lower court ruling applying the 4th amendments to the states? If yes, why? If no, why not?Your Decision?: 2-Listening DevicesKatz v. United States?(1967)Facts: A notable case that demonstrates the intersection of telephone technology and the Fourth Amendment is?Katz v. United States,?where law enforcement agents attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which Katz placed his calls. The agents did not have a warrant or court order of any sort. Your Decision?: 3-GPS Tracking(US vs. Jones) 2012Facts: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in?United States v. Katzin?(2010)that law enforcement officers must have a valid warrant before installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) device on a suspect’s vehicle.?In?United States v. Jones,?government agents obtained a search warrant permitting installation of a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized installation of the device in the District of Columbia within 10 days; however, the agents violated the warrant by not installing the GPS unit until the 11th day and installed the device when the vehicle was in Maryland. The government tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days and used that evidence to secure a conviction on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The D.C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. Would they uphold or overturn the lower court ruling? If yes, why? If no, why not?Your Decision?: 4-Drug sniffing dogs(Florida v. Jardines) 2012Facts: On November 3, 2006, the Miami-Dade Police Department received an unverified "crime stoppers" tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was being used to grow marijuana. On December 6, 2006, two detectives, along with a trained drug detection dog, approached the residence. The dog handler accompanied the dog to the front door of the home. The dog signaled that it detected the scent of narcotics. The detective also personally smelled marijuana.The detective prepared an affidavit and applied for a search warrant, which was issued. A search confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside the home. Jardines was arrested and charged with trafficking cannabis. Jardines moved to suppress the evidence seized at his home on the theory that the drug dog's sniff was an impermissible search under the Fourth Amendment and that all subsequent evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree.Your Decision?: Student Speech Cases 4th Amendment Search and Seizures Decision: MappThe Supreme Court ruled that the 4th amendment DOES apply to the states through selective incorporation. Searches without warrants are still allowed with exception, known as “inevitable discovery” or “good faith” exceptions. What are some examples of these? (pg 278 in AMSCO)Decision: KatzThe U.S. Supreme Court held that the government’s conduct in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and constituted an unlawful “search and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.Decision: JonesThe Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s reversal; however, the justices provided different reasons why they deemed GPS tracking unconstitutional and the constitutional distinction, if any, that exists between long-term and short-term GPS surveillance. The concurring opinion of Justice Sonia Sotomayor in?Jones?is frequently cited in cases analyzing the extent to which Fourth Amendment protections are eroded by advancements in telephone technology.Decision: Florida v Jardines Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a 5-4 opinion affirming the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The Court held that the front porch of a home is part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Typically, ordinary citizens are invited to enter onto the porch, either explicitly or implicitly, to communicate with the house's occupants. Police officers, however, cannot go beyond the scope of that invitation. Entering a person's porch for the purposes of conducting a search requires a broader license than the one commonly given to the general public. Without such a license, the police officers were conducting an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download