Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Fourth Amendment notes

on

  • 3,319 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,319
Views on SlideShare
3,311
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
19
Comments
0

1 Embed 8

https://blackboard.strayer.edu 8

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Fourth Amendment notes Fourth Amendment notes Presentation Transcript

  • probable cause vs. reasonable suspicion, search & seizures, and racial profiling
    Fourth Amendment notes
  • I. The Fourth Amendment
    A. From the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution:
    “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.”
  • I. The Fourth Amendment, Cont.
    B. No unreasonable search and seizure
    1. Must have a search warrant
    2. Has to be supported by probable cause
    C. Requirements of probable cause
    1. Likelihood that a crime was committed and that
    the suspect committed it.
    a. Suspicion does not equal probable cause!
    2. Sources: personal observation, information,
    evidence, and association
    D. Exclusionary rule: Any improperly obtained evidence
    is inadmissable in court.
  • II. Probable cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion
    A. Terry vs. Ohio (1968)
    1. Police must have "specific and articulable facts” to
    stop people
    a. facts may be “taken together with rational
    inferences” based on police experience.
    B. To make a stop--need reasonable suspicion.
    Purpose is investigative. Can frisk.
    C. To make an arrest—need probable cause. Purpose
    is to make a formal charge. Can search.
    D. Most arrests are made without warrants. Have to
    prove to the judge later that there was probable cause.
  • III. Search and Seizure
    A. Right to privacy protected from unreasonable
    searches:
    1. Individuals must prove they expected privacy.
    2. Society must see that expectation as reasonable.
    ex: Phone booth--yes, garbage--no
    3. However, privacy rights are superceded by
    reasonable suspicion
    B. Police can obtain search warrants to show they have not infringed on reasonable expectations of privacy.
    1. Must state specific place
    2. Must state specific person or items to be seized
  • III. Search and Seizure, Cont.
    3. Categories of items that can be seized:
    a. Items resulting from crime (eg. stolen
    goods)
    b. Items illegal for anyone to possess
    c. Items that could be "evidence" of crime
    (eg. blood-soaked gloves)
    d. Items used to commit crimes
  • III. Search and Seizure, Cont.
    C. Warrantless searches or seizures that are legal:
    1) Incidental to arrest--limited to areas within a person’s
    control (“arm’s reach”)
    2) Consent given (you do not have to give police permission to
    search, and they do not have to tell you that you have
    a choice.)
    3) Stop and frisk
    4) Hot pursuit-if a person who the police are chasing enters
    a building, the police can enter the building.
    5) "Moveable exception"--can search cars on probable cause.
    6) If it's in plain sight, police don't need probably cause to
    seize something.
  • IV. Racial Profiling
    A. Sometimes nicknamed "Driving While Black"
    B. Occurs when a police action is initiated by the race, ethnicity, or national origin of the suspect, rather than by any evidence or
    information that the suspect has broken the law.
    C. Is rarely an official policy, but many think that it is unofficially widespread
    D. Whren vs. United States (1996)--Supreme Court ruled that as
    long as police have objective probable cause to believe a traffic
    violation or wrongdoing has occurred, any other reasons for the
    stop will not be considered by the court--it has met the 4th
    Amendment standard.