140509075 olmstead-v-us-1928 o
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•770 views
In 1928, Roy Olmstead was prosecuted for violating Prohibition by importing and supplying alcoholic beverages. He appealed his conviction, arguing that evidence obtained from warrantless wiretaps of his phone conversations violated his 4th and 5th Amendment rights. In Olmstead v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the 4th Amendment did not prohibit warrantless wiretapping as there was no physical search or seizure of evidence. However, Justice Brandeis dissented, arguing that individuals are entitled to privacy in their communications and government overreach threatens civil liberties. This ruling was later overturned in 1967.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
Fourth Amendment
This document provides an overview of the 4th Amendment and constitutional searches and seizures. It discusses key concepts like the reasonableness clause, warrant clause, probable cause, and the continuum of contacts between law enforcement and the public. It explains that the 4th Amendment aims to balance security and privacy by allowing limited government searches and seizures if they are reasonable or supported by a warrant and probable cause. It also summarizes the landmark Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court case that established the legality of brief stops and pat-downs for weapons, known as stop and frisk, based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Fourth Amendment notes
This document summarizes key aspects of the 4th Amendment regarding search and seizure. It outlines the differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, with probable cause requiring a likelihood of criminal activity and reasonable suspicion only requiring articulable facts. It also discusses allowable warrantless searches incident to arrest, with consent, or in hot pursuit. The document notes that while racial profiling is not official policy, some believe it occurs unofficially when race rather than evidence prompts police action.
4th amendment
The document discusses the 4th Amendment and its implications for patrol deputies. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants be based on probable cause. Searches are allowed with consent, warrants, or under exigent circumstances like life-threatening situations. Arrests also require probable cause and can be made under or without a warrant depending on the type of offense. Private persons can make arrests but deputies must ensure arrests are lawful or reasonably believed to be.
4th amendment
This document discusses a lawsuit brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin. She sued the university, claiming her rejection was due to her race. The case discusses affirmative action policies and whether they constitute racial discrimination in college admissions. Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, and Anthony Kennedy expressed doubts about forbidding any consideration of race in admissions decisions.
Week 5 Lecture
This chapter discusses how procedural laws and landmark Supreme Court cases have established and governed police practices and citizens' rights. It outlines citizens' rights during interrogation, when police can make arrests or hold someone, and exceptions to obtaining warrants. It also summarizes a citizen's rights to privacy and prohibiting evidence obtained unconstitutionally. Police powers are affected by legislative bodies while Supreme Court cases define rules of evidence and qualifications of expert witnesses.
Rights of the Accused: The 5th Amendment
The document summarizes the 5 rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution: 1) Right to a grand jury, 2) Protection against double jeopardy, 3) Right against self-incrimination, 4) Right to due process, and 5) Protection from eminent domain seizures without just compensation. It provides examples and additional details about each right to further explain what they mean and how they apply.
Fourth amendment
This document summarizes key aspects of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law, including requirements for search warrants, exceptions to the warrant requirement, and analyses of relevant Supreme Court cases. It discusses the reasonable expectation of privacy test, probable cause standard, and exclusionary rule. It also outlines exceptions such as search incident to arrest, automobile exception, plain view doctrine, consent searches, and inventory searches.
Constitutional law unit 3
Here are the key points about investigatory stops:
- Officers must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on articulable facts and an objective basis.
- Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause. It considers the totality of the circumstances rather than hard certainties.
- Stops should be limited in scope and duration to confirm or dispel the suspicion that prompted the stop. Officers may conduct a limited search for weapons but not a full search.
- If suspicion is not confirmed or dispelled, the stop must end and the person must be allowed to leave. Arrest requires probable cause.
Recommended
Fourth Amendment
This document provides an overview of the 4th Amendment and constitutional searches and seizures. It discusses key concepts like the reasonableness clause, warrant clause, probable cause, and the continuum of contacts between law enforcement and the public. It explains that the 4th Amendment aims to balance security and privacy by allowing limited government searches and seizures if they are reasonable or supported by a warrant and probable cause. It also summarizes the landmark Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court case that established the legality of brief stops and pat-downs for weapons, known as stop and frisk, based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Fourth Amendment notes
This document summarizes key aspects of the 4th Amendment regarding search and seizure. It outlines the differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, with probable cause requiring a likelihood of criminal activity and reasonable suspicion only requiring articulable facts. It also discusses allowable warrantless searches incident to arrest, with consent, or in hot pursuit. The document notes that while racial profiling is not official policy, some believe it occurs unofficially when race rather than evidence prompts police action.
4th amendment
The document discusses the 4th Amendment and its implications for patrol deputies. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants be based on probable cause. Searches are allowed with consent, warrants, or under exigent circumstances like life-threatening situations. Arrests also require probable cause and can be made under or without a warrant depending on the type of offense. Private persons can make arrests but deputies must ensure arrests are lawful or reasonably believed to be.
4th amendment
This document discusses a lawsuit brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin. She sued the university, claiming her rejection was due to her race. The case discusses affirmative action policies and whether they constitute racial discrimination in college admissions. Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, and Anthony Kennedy expressed doubts about forbidding any consideration of race in admissions decisions.
Week 5 Lecture
This chapter discusses how procedural laws and landmark Supreme Court cases have established and governed police practices and citizens' rights. It outlines citizens' rights during interrogation, when police can make arrests or hold someone, and exceptions to obtaining warrants. It also summarizes a citizen's rights to privacy and prohibiting evidence obtained unconstitutionally. Police powers are affected by legislative bodies while Supreme Court cases define rules of evidence and qualifications of expert witnesses.
Rights of the Accused: The 5th Amendment
The document summarizes the 5 rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution: 1) Right to a grand jury, 2) Protection against double jeopardy, 3) Right against self-incrimination, 4) Right to due process, and 5) Protection from eminent domain seizures without just compensation. It provides examples and additional details about each right to further explain what they mean and how they apply.
Fourth amendment
This document summarizes key aspects of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law, including requirements for search warrants, exceptions to the warrant requirement, and analyses of relevant Supreme Court cases. It discusses the reasonable expectation of privacy test, probable cause standard, and exclusionary rule. It also outlines exceptions such as search incident to arrest, automobile exception, plain view doctrine, consent searches, and inventory searches.
Constitutional law unit 3
Here are the key points about investigatory stops:
- Officers must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on articulable facts and an objective basis.
- Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause. It considers the totality of the circumstances rather than hard certainties.
- Stops should be limited in scope and duration to confirm or dispel the suspicion that prompted the stop. Officers may conduct a limited search for weapons but not a full search.
- If suspicion is not confirmed or dispelled, the stop must end and the person must be allowed to leave. Arrest requires probable cause.
Constitutional law unit 3
1. The document discusses the text and historical context of the Second Amendment and key Supreme Court cases related to the right to bear arms like Heller and McDonald.
2. It also covers Fourth Amendment search and seizure law, including requirements for warrants, probable cause, and exceptions like stop and frisk, search incident to arrest, and the exclusionary rule.
3. The roles of reasonable suspicion and probable cause in conducting legal stops, arrests, and searches are analyzed through Supreme Court cases like Terry, Wardlow, and Florida v. J.L. The differences between investigatory stops and arrests are also outlined.
Lesson 33
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It requires that searches be approved by a warrant, which requires probable cause. The exclusionary rule was created to discourage law enforcement from violating citizens' Fourth Amendment rights by excluding illegally obtained evidence from trials. Over time, the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to provide additional privacy protections against government overreach.
Ch 5
The document summarizes some of the key laws and Supreme Court rulings that govern police conduct and procedures during criminal investigations and interrogations. It discusses the 4th and 5th Amendments of the US Constitution, the exclusionary rule, exceptions to warrant requirements for searches and seizures, Miranda warnings, the right to counsel, and exceptions for police deception and line-ups. It also briefly mentions issues around privacy, the Patriot Act, deadly force, and treatment of enemy combatants.
Ch 7
The document discusses the pretrial and trial processes in the criminal justice system, including pretrial activities such as arraignment, bail determination, and plea bargaining. It also covers the roles of various participants in a criminal trial such as judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors, and witnesses. Key rights afforded to criminal defendants that can impact the trial process are also examined, such as the right to a speedy trial and the right to confront accusers.
Fourth amendment tutorial
The document is an interactive online lesson about the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. It covers key topics like probable cause, reasonable suspicion, examples of reasonable vs unreasonable searches. Users can navigate between pages on the main topics using blue hyperlinks. Short videos and a quiz are also included to help explain the concepts.
Chapter 7
This document discusses various methods that law enforcement uses to identify and arrest suspects. It covers topics such as eyewitness identifications, developing suspect profiles, conducting surveillance both covertly and openly, using undercover operations and sting operations, conducting raids with consideration for alternatives and legality, making legal arrests, use of reasonable force, and employing tactics like the PIT maneuver during pursuits. The overall focus is on outlining investigative techniques and considerations for identifying and apprehending criminal suspects.
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 10
The document discusses rights protected under the Fifth Amendment, including the right against self-incrimination. It summarizes several important Supreme Court cases that have shaped Fifth Amendment protections, such as Miranda v. Arizona which established that suspects in custody must be informed of their rights before interrogation. The document also discusses exceptions to Miranda such as public safety interrogations, and the totality of circumstances test used to determine if a confession was voluntarily made.
Contempt of court presentation
This document provides a simple guide for journalists on reporting court proceedings and the differences between various UK courts. It summarizes when contempt of court may occur, such as publishing information that could prejudice a fair trial when reporting on active cases. It also outlines limits on what journalists can report for different types of cases, such as only providing basic details for youth court cases to protect anonymity of minors.
Search and seizure ground rules
There are ground rules to Search & Seizure. The 4th Amendment protects you from “unreasonable search and seizures.” The police may stop a vehicle when they have reasonable suspicion to believe a traffic offense has been committed, but they must follow certain rules. If you suspect the police overstepped their constitutional authority during your search, and it was unlawful, you should consult an attorney to discuss your legal options.
273 contempt of court -2012
The document discusses rules and restrictions around reporting on legal proceedings in order to avoid contempt of court. It outlines the different types of courts in the UK legal system and notes that while courts are generally open to the public and media, reporting is limited in some cases to protect fairness and privacy. It provides examples of situations where reporting could be considered contempt, such as discussing active cases, revealing protected identities, or breaching court orders. Defences to contempt charges and relevant sections of the Contempt of Court Act are also summarized.
Lesson 31
The document discusses key concepts related to the 4th and 5th Amendments of the US Constitution. It defines terms like probable cause, warrants, search and seizure. It explains that the 4th Amendment was influenced by British law and prohibits general warrants, requiring probable cause and particularity. It describes how the 4th Amendment is interpreted, including when warrants are required and how the exclusionary rule enforces the Amendment. The 5th Amendment protects against self-incrimination and the Miranda Rule informs suspects of their rights.
Unit 9 notes
The document discusses legal procedures related to arrests, searches and seizures, and interrogations. It outlines the requirements for arrest warrants and probable cause for arrests. It describes the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the requirements for search warrants. It also discusses the Miranda Rights required to be read to suspects before interrogation to protect against self-incrimination.
Chapter 5
This document discusses different types of evidence that can be used in criminal investigations and trials. It outlines that evidence must be competent, properly collected, identified, filed, saved, and have a clear chain of custody. There are many types of evidence including physical, direct, indirect, trace, prima facie, associative, corpus delicti, probative, and exculpatory evidence. When presenting evidence in court, the chain of custody from collection to presentation must be clearly documented and explained. Scientific evidence standards for admissibility were established in Frye v. US and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.
273 contempt of court -2012
This document provides information about contempt of court and restrictions on media reporting in legal proceedings. It discusses:
1) The open court principle that justice should be seen to be done, but there are some restrictions on media reporting to protect fairness and privacy.
2) Reporting is restricted for active court cases, discussions of alleged criminals, and matters involving juveniles, victims, or national security. Contempt of court can include actions that prejudice or interfere with legal proceedings.
3) The Contempt of Court Act 1981 establishes types of contempt and defenses. Reporting restrictions apply to protect fairness in trials and privacy of victims, and can be lifted by judges as a deterrent.
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 7
This document summarizes key concepts related to the 4th Amendment. It defines search and seizure and explains that the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. It also discusses the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, and exceptions like stops, frisks, searches incident to arrest, and the plain view doctrine. Overall it provides an overview of 4th Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures.
Ch08
This document provides an overview of the 4th Amendment and key concepts related to constitutional searches and seizures. It discusses that the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It establishes that a warrant is generally required for a search or seizure, and that warrants must be based on probable cause. The document examines the clauses of the 4th Amendment, what constitutes a reasonable search, reasonable expectation of privacy, and probable cause. It explores the different sources of establishing probable cause and discusses search and arrest warrants.
Chapter 4
The document discusses various types of searches and the legal standards that apply. It covers searches requiring warrants and exceptions where warrants are not needed, such as consent searches, pat downs, vehicle searches, plain view evidence, use of drug dogs, and searches of trash. Throughout, it explains the balancing of individual privacy rights with law enforcement needs based on Supreme Court rulings.
Chapter 10 - The Fifth Amendment: Obtaining Information Legally
The document summarizes key aspects of the Fifth Amendment, including the right against self-incrimination, due process rights, and how these rights apply in criminal interrogations and confessions. It discusses landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, such as Miranda v. Arizona, which established that suspects in custody must be informed of their rights before questioning. The document also covers exceptions to Miranda warnings, such as for public safety questions.
Impeachment
The document discusses impeachment, conviction, and presidential succession. It explains that impeachment is a formal accusation of a crime by the House, then the Senate holds a trial to determine guilt or innocence. A 2/3 majority vote is required in the Senate for conviction. Two presidents have been impeached (Johnson and Clinton) but none have been convicted. The presidential line of succession is outlined in the 25th Amendment and Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
Janae gerard final digital law and policy
1. The document discusses the constitutional right of citizens to film police under the First and Fourth Amendments and examines several court cases establishing this right.
2. It outlines concerns that police and citizens have regarding citizens filming police, such as officer safety versus deterring misconduct.
3. The document provides an overview of federal and state wiretapping laws and notes that some states require all-party consent to audio record conversations, posing legal risks for citizens who record police without consent.
We The People, session vii, Rights of the Accused
Alternate title: Cops, Courts and Corrections. We see how the Court has incorporated Bill of Rights protections for the accused as burdens on the states' justice systems.
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on .docx
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on a Fourth Amendment case. Carefully read about the case in question, the summaries of related Supreme Court decisions, and directions for the assignment.
The Case “Doe v. City of Intrusia”:
Trouble was brewing in the small, quiet city of Intrusia. Someone was selling methamphetamine to the local teenagers and a popular football player died after an overdose. The community was panicked and demanded that the police find the source of the meth and shut it down immediately. The police suspected that 20 year old Joe Doe was selling the meth but they didn’t have much evidence.
The state prosecutor advised the police department to talk with the local cell phone carrier about “cloning” Mr. Doe’s phone. The cell phone carrier created a “clone” phone which allowed the police to read text messages sent and received by Mr. Doe. In no time the police had evidence implicating Mr. Doe as a dealer and the location of the meth lab. Mr. Doe was convicted and the meth lab was closed.
Mr. Doe is appealing his conviction, claiming that the interception of text messages violated the unreasonable search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, all evidence from the text messages should have been excluded from his trial.
The City of Intrusia argues that there was no physical intrusion into Mr. Doe’s space and that police were acting quickly in order to uphold their duty to protect the community’s safety.
Background:
In Silverman v. United States the Supreme Court held that that the Fourth Amendment does not protect conversations, therefore wiretapping does not constitute a search and seizure. The case was reversed in Katz v. United States, when Justice Harlan proposed a two pronged test of whether public actions should be considered private and therefore protected. 1) Has the person exhibited an expectation of privacy? and 2) is the expectation of privacy one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'
In more recent decisions, the Supreme Court has found that society is not prepared to extend privacy rights to bank customers regarding their bank statements and that society was not prepared to recognize a privacy right-to grow a backyard crop of marijuana.
The Questions:
• Does the Fourth Amendment protect text messages sent over a cell phone?
• Is there a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when texts are sent?
o Did Mr. Doe exhibit an expectation of privacy when he sent the texts?
o Is there a societal expectation of privacy in the process of text messaging?
Related Supreme Court Decisions (each case is linked to a short description on Oyez.com):
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Did the use of evidence disclosed in wiretapped private telephone conversations; violate the recorded party’s Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Katz v. United States (1967)
Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to o.
More Related Content
What's hot
Constitutional law unit 3
1. The document discusses the text and historical context of the Second Amendment and key Supreme Court cases related to the right to bear arms like Heller and McDonald.
2. It also covers Fourth Amendment search and seizure law, including requirements for warrants, probable cause, and exceptions like stop and frisk, search incident to arrest, and the exclusionary rule.
3. The roles of reasonable suspicion and probable cause in conducting legal stops, arrests, and searches are analyzed through Supreme Court cases like Terry, Wardlow, and Florida v. J.L. The differences between investigatory stops and arrests are also outlined.
Lesson 33
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It requires that searches be approved by a warrant, which requires probable cause. The exclusionary rule was created to discourage law enforcement from violating citizens' Fourth Amendment rights by excluding illegally obtained evidence from trials. Over time, the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to provide additional privacy protections against government overreach.
Ch 5
The document summarizes some of the key laws and Supreme Court rulings that govern police conduct and procedures during criminal investigations and interrogations. It discusses the 4th and 5th Amendments of the US Constitution, the exclusionary rule, exceptions to warrant requirements for searches and seizures, Miranda warnings, the right to counsel, and exceptions for police deception and line-ups. It also briefly mentions issues around privacy, the Patriot Act, deadly force, and treatment of enemy combatants.
Ch 7
The document discusses the pretrial and trial processes in the criminal justice system, including pretrial activities such as arraignment, bail determination, and plea bargaining. It also covers the roles of various participants in a criminal trial such as judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors, and witnesses. Key rights afforded to criminal defendants that can impact the trial process are also examined, such as the right to a speedy trial and the right to confront accusers.
Fourth amendment tutorial
The document is an interactive online lesson about the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. It covers key topics like probable cause, reasonable suspicion, examples of reasonable vs unreasonable searches. Users can navigate between pages on the main topics using blue hyperlinks. Short videos and a quiz are also included to help explain the concepts.
Chapter 7
This document discusses various methods that law enforcement uses to identify and arrest suspects. It covers topics such as eyewitness identifications, developing suspect profiles, conducting surveillance both covertly and openly, using undercover operations and sting operations, conducting raids with consideration for alternatives and legality, making legal arrests, use of reasonable force, and employing tactics like the PIT maneuver during pursuits. The overall focus is on outlining investigative techniques and considerations for identifying and apprehending criminal suspects.
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 10
The document discusses rights protected under the Fifth Amendment, including the right against self-incrimination. It summarizes several important Supreme Court cases that have shaped Fifth Amendment protections, such as Miranda v. Arizona which established that suspects in custody must be informed of their rights before interrogation. The document also discusses exceptions to Miranda such as public safety interrogations, and the totality of circumstances test used to determine if a confession was voluntarily made.
Contempt of court presentation
This document provides a simple guide for journalists on reporting court proceedings and the differences between various UK courts. It summarizes when contempt of court may occur, such as publishing information that could prejudice a fair trial when reporting on active cases. It also outlines limits on what journalists can report for different types of cases, such as only providing basic details for youth court cases to protect anonymity of minors.
Search and seizure ground rules
There are ground rules to Search & Seizure. The 4th Amendment protects you from “unreasonable search and seizures.” The police may stop a vehicle when they have reasonable suspicion to believe a traffic offense has been committed, but they must follow certain rules. If you suspect the police overstepped their constitutional authority during your search, and it was unlawful, you should consult an attorney to discuss your legal options.
273 contempt of court -2012
The document discusses rules and restrictions around reporting on legal proceedings in order to avoid contempt of court. It outlines the different types of courts in the UK legal system and notes that while courts are generally open to the public and media, reporting is limited in some cases to protect fairness and privacy. It provides examples of situations where reporting could be considered contempt, such as discussing active cases, revealing protected identities, or breaching court orders. Defences to contempt charges and relevant sections of the Contempt of Court Act are also summarized.
Lesson 31
The document discusses key concepts related to the 4th and 5th Amendments of the US Constitution. It defines terms like probable cause, warrants, search and seizure. It explains that the 4th Amendment was influenced by British law and prohibits general warrants, requiring probable cause and particularity. It describes how the 4th Amendment is interpreted, including when warrants are required and how the exclusionary rule enforces the Amendment. The 5th Amendment protects against self-incrimination and the Miranda Rule informs suspects of their rights.
Unit 9 notes
The document discusses legal procedures related to arrests, searches and seizures, and interrogations. It outlines the requirements for arrest warrants and probable cause for arrests. It describes the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the requirements for search warrants. It also discusses the Miranda Rights required to be read to suspects before interrogation to protect against self-incrimination.
Chapter 5
This document discusses different types of evidence that can be used in criminal investigations and trials. It outlines that evidence must be competent, properly collected, identified, filed, saved, and have a clear chain of custody. There are many types of evidence including physical, direct, indirect, trace, prima facie, associative, corpus delicti, probative, and exculpatory evidence. When presenting evidence in court, the chain of custody from collection to presentation must be clearly documented and explained. Scientific evidence standards for admissibility were established in Frye v. US and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.
273 contempt of court -2012
This document provides information about contempt of court and restrictions on media reporting in legal proceedings. It discusses:
1) The open court principle that justice should be seen to be done, but there are some restrictions on media reporting to protect fairness and privacy.
2) Reporting is restricted for active court cases, discussions of alleged criminals, and matters involving juveniles, victims, or national security. Contempt of court can include actions that prejudice or interfere with legal proceedings.
3) The Contempt of Court Act 1981 establishes types of contempt and defenses. Reporting restrictions apply to protect fairness in trials and privacy of victims, and can be lifted by judges as a deterrent.
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 7
This document summarizes key concepts related to the 4th Amendment. It defines search and seizure and explains that the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. It also discusses the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, and exceptions like stops, frisks, searches incident to arrest, and the plain view doctrine. Overall it provides an overview of 4th Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures.
Ch08
This document provides an overview of the 4th Amendment and key concepts related to constitutional searches and seizures. It discusses that the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It establishes that a warrant is generally required for a search or seizure, and that warrants must be based on probable cause. The document examines the clauses of the 4th Amendment, what constitutes a reasonable search, reasonable expectation of privacy, and probable cause. It explores the different sources of establishing probable cause and discusses search and arrest warrants.
Chapter 4
The document discusses various types of searches and the legal standards that apply. It covers searches requiring warrants and exceptions where warrants are not needed, such as consent searches, pat downs, vehicle searches, plain view evidence, use of drug dogs, and searches of trash. Throughout, it explains the balancing of individual privacy rights with law enforcement needs based on Supreme Court rulings.
Chapter 10 - The Fifth Amendment: Obtaining Information Legally
The document summarizes key aspects of the Fifth Amendment, including the right against self-incrimination, due process rights, and how these rights apply in criminal interrogations and confessions. It discusses landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, such as Miranda v. Arizona, which established that suspects in custody must be informed of their rights before questioning. The document also covers exceptions to Miranda warnings, such as for public safety questions.
Impeachment
The document discusses impeachment, conviction, and presidential succession. It explains that impeachment is a formal accusation of a crime by the House, then the Senate holds a trial to determine guilt or innocence. A 2/3 majority vote is required in the Senate for conviction. Two presidents have been impeached (Johnson and Clinton) but none have been convicted. The presidential line of succession is outlined in the 25th Amendment and Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
What's hot (19)
Chapter 10 - The Fifth Amendment: Obtaining Information Legally
Chapter 10 - The Fifth Amendment: Obtaining Information Legally
Similar to 140509075 olmstead-v-us-1928 o
Janae gerard final digital law and policy
1. The document discusses the constitutional right of citizens to film police under the First and Fourth Amendments and examines several court cases establishing this right.
2. It outlines concerns that police and citizens have regarding citizens filming police, such as officer safety versus deterring misconduct.
3. The document provides an overview of federal and state wiretapping laws and notes that some states require all-party consent to audio record conversations, posing legal risks for citizens who record police without consent.
We The People, session vii, Rights of the Accused
Alternate title: Cops, Courts and Corrections. We see how the Court has incorporated Bill of Rights protections for the accused as burdens on the states' justice systems.
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on .docx
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on a Fourth Amendment case. Carefully read about the case in question, the summaries of related Supreme Court decisions, and directions for the assignment.
The Case “Doe v. City of Intrusia”:
Trouble was brewing in the small, quiet city of Intrusia. Someone was selling methamphetamine to the local teenagers and a popular football player died after an overdose. The community was panicked and demanded that the police find the source of the meth and shut it down immediately. The police suspected that 20 year old Joe Doe was selling the meth but they didn’t have much evidence.
The state prosecutor advised the police department to talk with the local cell phone carrier about “cloning” Mr. Doe’s phone. The cell phone carrier created a “clone” phone which allowed the police to read text messages sent and received by Mr. Doe. In no time the police had evidence implicating Mr. Doe as a dealer and the location of the meth lab. Mr. Doe was convicted and the meth lab was closed.
Mr. Doe is appealing his conviction, claiming that the interception of text messages violated the unreasonable search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, all evidence from the text messages should have been excluded from his trial.
The City of Intrusia argues that there was no physical intrusion into Mr. Doe’s space and that police were acting quickly in order to uphold their duty to protect the community’s safety.
Background:
In Silverman v. United States the Supreme Court held that that the Fourth Amendment does not protect conversations, therefore wiretapping does not constitute a search and seizure. The case was reversed in Katz v. United States, when Justice Harlan proposed a two pronged test of whether public actions should be considered private and therefore protected. 1) Has the person exhibited an expectation of privacy? and 2) is the expectation of privacy one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'
In more recent decisions, the Supreme Court has found that society is not prepared to extend privacy rights to bank customers regarding their bank statements and that society was not prepared to recognize a privacy right-to grow a backyard crop of marijuana.
The Questions:
• Does the Fourth Amendment protect text messages sent over a cell phone?
• Is there a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when texts are sent?
o Did Mr. Doe exhibit an expectation of privacy when he sent the texts?
o Is there a societal expectation of privacy in the process of text messaging?
Related Supreme Court Decisions (each case is linked to a short description on Oyez.com):
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Did the use of evidence disclosed in wiretapped private telephone conversations; violate the recorded party’s Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Katz v. United States (1967)
Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to o.
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on .docx
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on a Fourth Amendment case. Carefully read about the case in question, the summaries of related Supreme Court decisions, and directions for the assignment.
The Case “Doe v. City of Intrusia”:
Trouble was brewing in the small, quiet city of Intrusia. Someone was selling methamphetamine to the local teenagers and a popular football player died after an overdose. The community was panicked and demanded that the police find the source of the meth and shut it down immediately. The police suspected that 20 year old Joe Doe was selling the meth but they didn’t have much evidence.
The state prosecutor advised the police department to talk with the local cell phone carrier about “cloning” Mr. Doe’s phone. The cell phone carrier created a “clone” phone which allowed the police to read text messages sent and received by Mr. Doe. In no time the police had evidence implicating Mr. Doe as a dealer and the location of the meth lab. Mr. Doe was convicted and the meth lab was closed.
Mr. Doe is appealing his conviction, claiming that the interception of text messages violated the unreasonable search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, all evidence from the text messages should have been excluded from his trial.
The City of Intrusia argues that there was no physical intrusion into Mr. Doe’s space and that police were acting quickly in order to uphold their duty to protect the community’s safety.
Background:
In Silverman v. United States the Supreme Court held that that the Fourth Amendment does not protect conversations, therefore wiretapping does not constitute a search and seizure. The case was reversed in Katz v. United States, when Justice Harlan proposed a two pronged test of whether public actions should be considered private and therefore protected. 1) Has the person exhibited an expectation of privacy? and 2) is the expectation of privacy one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'
In more recent decisions, the Supreme Court has found that society is not prepared to extend privacy rights to bank customers regarding their bank statements and that society was not prepared to recognize a privacy right-to grow a backyard crop of marijuana.
The Questions:
• Does the Fourth Amendment protect text messages sent over a cell phone?
• Is there a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when texts are sent?
o Did Mr. Doe exhibit an expectation of privacy when he sent the texts?
o Is there a societal expectation of privacy in the process of text messaging?
Related Supreme Court Decisions (each case is linked to a short description on Oyez.com):
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Did the use of evidence disclosed in wiretapped private telephone conversations; violate the recorded party’s Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Katz v. United States (1967)
Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obt.
Chapter 5 - Crimes and Torts
This document provides an overview of criminal law and procedure in 3 chapters. It defines crimes and their elements, constitutional protections for criminal defendants, and the criminal procedure process. It also discusses key Supreme Court cases that have shaped criminal law, such as Skilling, Arthur Andersen, and Berghuis v. Thompkins. The document concludes by covering white collar crimes, computer crimes, and ethical issues around corporate wrongdoing.
Writing Assignment #2 Supreme Court DecisionIn this assignment,.docx
Writing Assignment #2: Supreme Court Decision
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on a Fourth Amendment case.
Carefully read about the case in question, the summaries of related Supreme Court decisions, and directions for the assignment.
The Case “Doe v. City of Intrusia”:
Trouble was brewing in the small, quiet city of Intrusia.
Someone was selling methamphetamine to the local teenagers and a popular football player died after an overdose.
The community was panicked and demanded that the police find the source of the meth and shut it down immediately.
The police suspected that 20 year old Joe Doe was selling the meth but they didn’t have much evidence.
The state prosecutor advised the police department to talk with the local cell phone carrier about “cloning” Mr. Doe’s phone.
The cell phone carrier created a “clone” phone which allowed the police to read text messages sent and received by Mr. Doe.
In no time the police had evidence implicating Mr. Doe as a dealer and the location of the meth lab.
Mr. Doe was convicted and the meth lab was closed.
Mr. Doe is appealing his conviction, claiming that the interception of text messages violated the unreasonable search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment.
Furthermore, all evidence from the text messages should have been excluded from his trial.
The City of Intrusia argues that there was no physical intrusion into Mr. Doe’s space and that police were acting quickly in order to uphold their duty to protect the community’s safety.
Background:
In Silverman v. United States the Supreme Court held that that the Fourth Amendment does not protect conversations, therefore wiretapping does not constitute a search and seizure.
The case was reversed in Katz v. United States, when Justice Harlan proposed a two pronged test of whether public actions should be considered private and therefore protected.
1)
Has the person exhibited an expectation of privacy?
and 2) is the expectation of privacy one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'?
In more recent decisions, the Supreme Court has found that society is not prepared to extend privacy rights to bank customers regarding their bank statements and that society was not prepared to recognize a privacy right-to grow a backyard crop of marijuana.
The Questions:
·
Does the Fourth Amendment protect text messages sent over a cell phone?
·
Is there a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when texts are sent?
o
Did Mr. Doe exhibit an expectation of privacy when he sent the texts?
o
Is there a societal expectation of privacy in the process of text messaging?
Related Supreme Court Decisions (each case is linked to a short description on Oyez.com):
Court Case
Question
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Did the use of evidence disclosed in wiretapped private telephone conversations; violate the recorded party’s Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Katz v. United States (1967)
Does the Fourth Amendment protec.
Unit 2 civil liberties and civil rights chapters 4 & 5
The document provides explanations of key Supreme Court cases and legal concepts related to constitutional law and civil rights in the United States. It defines terms like strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, de jure segregation, de facto segregation, prior restraint, probable cause, symbolic speech, and the exclusionary rule. It also summarizes important cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Unit 2 study guide
This document provides a study guide for a Unit 2 Test on geography and culture. It includes vocabulary definitions for key concepts like the amendment process, civil rights, and Supreme Court cases. It also summarizes several important Supreme Court cases involving the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Additionally, it outlines the formal process for amending the US Constitution and highlights some basic rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Finally, it includes several hypothetical scenarios testing knowledge of Constitutional rights and amendments.
The bill of rights
The document summarizes the key rights and freedoms outlined in the first ten amendments of the US Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. It describes the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. It also outlines rights in the Second through Tenth Amendments, including the right to bear arms, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, due process, and rights reserved to the states and people.
The bill of rights
The document summarizes the key rights and freedoms outlined in the first ten amendments of the US Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. It describes the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. It also discusses the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Third Amendment protection against quartering of troops, and the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable search and seizure. It provides overviews of legal rights outlined in the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
ADMJ2 - Intro to ADMJ - Chapter 5
This document provides an overview of Chapter 5 from the textbook "Introduction to Administration of Justice" which covers legal aspects of policing. The chapter objectives are described, including describing legal restraints on police action and instances of police abuse of power. The document then discusses landmark Supreme Court cases related to search and seizure law, arrests, and other 4th Amendment issues. Specific cases and rules are outlined relating to topics like stop and frisk, plain view doctrine, exigent circumstances, search warrants, and other areas of search and seizure law.
Presentación sin título-1.pdf
The document summarizes the Guildford Four case, which involved four Irish people accused of bombings in pubs in Guildford, UK in 1974. The British police accused and coerced confessions from the Irish defendants despite lacking evidence. They were later proven innocent after one continued fighting for a fair judgement. The document discusses the ethical dilemma the British courts faced in choosing to sentence the defendants to appease society despite their likely innocence, or acquit them and risk further conflict. It concludes the courts' actions in coercing confessions and sentencing the innocent men were wrong.
Billofrights
This document discusses the Bill of Rights and examines the challenge of balancing individual rights with the needs of government. It outlines the key protections guaranteed by the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, including freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, protections against unwarranted search and seizure, self-incrimination, and the right to bear arms. It also notes some limitations and exceptions to rights like free speech. Students are tasked with exploring these issues through analyzing scenarios, debates, and news articles related to the amendments.
4Th Amendment Essay
Fourth Amendment Conclusion
The Fourth Amendment Essay
Fourth Amendment Essay
Essay On 4th Amendment
Fourth Amendment Essay
4Th Amendment Essay
Fourth Amendment Conclusion
The Fourth Amendment Essay
Fourth Amendment Essay
Essay On 4th Amendment
Fourth Amendment Essay
Ch10
1. The document discusses various types of searches permitted under the 4th Amendment, including searches with a warrant, consent searches, frisks, plain view searches, and searches incident to lawful arrest.
2. It explains the fundamental rules for constitutional searches, such as requiring governmental action and a reasonable expectation of privacy. Searches must also be limited in scope and not be general exploratory searches.
3. The document provides numerous Supreme Court cases that have helped define the scope and limitations of different types of searches, such as establishing the plain feel doctrine and limiting consent searches to voluntary consent without coercion.
Terry Stop, Question And Frisk Case Study
The Terry v. Ohio case established that police officers can stop and frisk individuals without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In 1963, an officer observed John Terry and Richard Chilton repeatedly pacing in front of a store and conferring with another man. Believing they were casing the store for a robbery, the officer stopped and frisked them, finding concealed weapons on both men. The Supreme Court ruled this was a valid stop and frisk, allowing such actions without probable cause as long as officers can articulate reasonable suspicion. The ruling struck a balance between law enforcement needs and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
COM 101 Chapter 16
The document discusses various laws and court cases related to the regulation of media in the United States, including the First Amendment protections of free speech and the press, prior restraint, defamation laws, copyright, advertising regulations, and the regulation of broadcast media like cable television and radio. It also examines exceptions to free speech like obscenity, privacy laws, and commercial speech standards.
Chapter 13 Interrogation, Electronic Surveillance, and Other .docx
Chapter 13: Interrogation, Electronic Surveillance, and Other Police Practices 471
# 151053 Cust: Cengage Au: Hall Pg. No. 471
Title: Criminal Law and Procedure Server: __________________
K
Short / Normal
DESIGN SERVICES OF
S4-CARLISLE
Publishing Services
confessions, and admissions to prove guilt is controversial. The United States Supreme
Court has recognized that admissions are highly suspect when relied upon alone to
obtain a confession. The Court stated, in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964),4 that a “system
of criminal law enforcement which comes to depend on the ‘confession’ will, in the
long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a system which depends on
extrinsic evidence independently” obtained through other law enforcement practices.
At common law, confessions and admissions could be used freely, as long as they
were made voluntarily. The early basis for excluding involuntary confessions was the
Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.5 Eventually, federal
defendants could seek to have confessions suppressed if they were not taken before a mag-
istrate promptly after arrest. This was known as the McNabb-Mallory rule, named for
two Supreme Court cases.6 The rule was not constitutionally based. Instead, the Court
announced the rule in its supervisory role over the nation’s federal courts. While the rule
of quick presentment of arrestees to judges had existed at common law and had been
codified by Congress, there was no remedy for violations. Accordingly, the Court held
that confessions that occurred after unreasonable delays should be excluded. Congress re-
acted to McNabb-Mallory and Miranda by enacting a statute that permits the admission
of a confession so long as it was voluntarily given. Another section provides that regardless
of any delay in presenting a suspect to a judge, a confession shall be admitted if obtained
within 6 hours of arrest. In Corley v. United States, 556 U.S.—(2009) it was held that if
there is a delay in presenting a suspect to a judge longer than 6 hours, the old McNabb-
Mallory exclusionary rule applies if a delay is found to be unreasonable.
Today, interrogations, confessions, and admissions are governed by these rules, as
well as two broader rights: the Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimina-
tion and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Miranda
By virtue of popular television and films, the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona,
or at least the “Miranda” warnings that are a product of that case, is one of the best
known judicial decisions of our time.
[The Supreme Court consolidated appeals from
several individuals who had been convicted at trials
where their confessions were entered into evidence.
Ernesto Miranda, for whom the case is named,
was arrested for rape and kidnapping. He was
interrogated at a police station. He was not advised
of his constitutional rights, he never requested to
see .
The Bill of Rights
This PowerPoint details the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and explains the rights and privileges that are granted to citizens, protecting them from expansive government power.
Similar to 140509075 olmstead-v-us-1928 o (20)
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on .docx
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on .docx
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on .docx
In this assignment, you will be a Supreme Court Justice deciding on .docx
Writing Assignment #2 Supreme Court DecisionIn this assignment,.docx
Writing Assignment #2 Supreme Court DecisionIn this assignment,.docx
Unit 2 civil liberties and civil rights chapters 4 & 5
Unit 2 civil liberties and civil rights chapters 4 & 5
Chapter 13 Interrogation, Electronic Surveillance, and Other .docx
Chapter 13 Interrogation, Electronic Surveillance, and Other .docx
140509075 olmstead-v-us-1928 o
- 2. • 1928 – In the middle of Prohibition, – Prohibition= outlaws the sale of alcoholic beverages – Roy Olmstead + partners violates the National Prohibition Act . • Imported and supplied alcoholic beverages. • Prosecuted, tried and convicted in Federal Court.
- 3. • 18th Amendment – Aka Prohibition Amendment effective from 1919-1933. – Violated by many citizens • Bootleggers sold illegal liquor but rarely prosecuted. • It was hard for the government to obtain evidence so they resorted to wire tapping telephones. • Olmstead’s Actions •He appealed the case to the Supreme Court for violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment by use of wiretapped evidence.
- 4. • 4th Amendment – “The Right of The People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
- 5. • 5th Amendment – Protects a person charged with a criminal offense from being a witness against himself or herself. – You can’t self incriminate. • Questions Raised- – Whether either the 4th or 5th Amendment prohibits evidence obtained from telephone wiretaps?
- 6. • The Court Ruled- – 6 to 3 against Olmstead. – Olmstead argued that since the evidence came entirely from wiretapping that it couldn’t be used against him. Stating protection under the 4th and 5th Amendment. Since it was unwarranted and self-incriminating.
- 7. • If the 4th Amendment was not violated then the 5th wasn’t either because no one forced him to speak over the phone. • Does Wiretapping = Forcible entry ? • If so it couldn’t be used in court.
- 8. • Taft held that the 4th Amendment- – “shows that the search is to be of material things the person, the house, his papers or his effects. The description of a warrant necessary to make the proceedings lawful is that it must specify the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.”
- 9. • But the Amendment doesn’t forbid what has happened here because there was no searching, there was no seizure, said evidence was only obtained from listening. There was no entry. • Telephone lines are not protected by the 4th Amendment. • Taft concluded that if evidence provided from non ethical sources by the government was thrown out than it would give criminals the upper hand.
- 10. • Justice Louis Brandeis – Disagreed, “Decency, sec urity and liberty demand that government officials shall be subject to the same rules of conduct that are commanded of the citizen.”
- 11. • This decision lasted until 1967 (Katz case) which was overruled on grounds that a trespass was unnecessary for a violation of the 4th Amendment and it protected intangibles such as a conversation.
- 12. 1. Why did the Supreme Court hold that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to wiretaps? The Supreme court stated the 4th Amendment didn’t apply because there was no physical search and seizure just over heard conversations. 2. What did the Court say about the means by which the evidence is obtained? If the evidence is important then the method of obtaining it is unimportant.
- 13. 3.Suppose you had broken a law, and the police found evidence of your crime by breaking into your home. Under the Olmstead ruling, would the evidence be admissible in trial? No because there would be need of a warrant. 4. What did Justice Brandeis mean when he said that the end justified the means? This statement refers to whether obtaining evidence through an illegal source makes it okay if you in the end can put a criminal in jail. Is it okay to stoop to the level of a criminal to put them in jail?
- 14. 5. Do you agree with the Decision of the court? I do not agree with the decision of the court but the dissenting opinion because it defeats the purpose of both the 4th and 5th amendments if you can legally take some ones phone conversations and use it against them with out a warrant , it is an invasion of privacy.