Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

9.22 PARTICULAR RIGHTSFOURTH AMENDMENTUNREASONABLE SEIZURE OF PERSONEXCESSIVE (NONDEADLY) FORCE

In general, a seizure of a person is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if a police officer uses excessive force [in making a lawful arrest] [and] [or] [in defending [himself] [herself] [others]. Thus, in order to prove an unreasonable seizure in this case, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer[s] used excessive force when [insert factual basis of claim].

Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may only use such force as is "objectively reasonable" under all of the circumstances. In other words, you must judge the reasonableness of a particular use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

In determining whether the officer[s] used excessive force in this case, consider all of the circumstances known to the officer[s] on the scene, including:

1. The severity of the crime or other circumstances to which the officer[s] [was] [were] responding;

2. Whether the plaintiff posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer[s] or to others;

3. Whether the plaintiff was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight;

4. The amount of time and any changing circumstances during which the officer had to determine the type and amount of force that appeared to be necessary;

5. The type and amount of force used;

[6. The availability of alternative methods [to take the plaintiff into custody] [to subdue the plaintiff;]

Originally posted here:
9.22 Particular RightsFourth AmendmentUnreasonable ...

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen's right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property -- whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses.

What Does the Fourth Amendment Protect?

In the criminal law realm, Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" protections extend to:

The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place.

When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply?

The legal standards derived from the Fourth Amendment provide constitutional protection to individuals in the following situations, among others:

Potential scenarios implicating the Fourth Amendment, and law enforcement's legal obligation to protect Fourth Amendment rights in those scenarios, are too numerous to cover here. However, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has:

What if My Fourth Amendment Rights Are Violated?

When law enforcement officers violate an individual's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, and a search or seizure is deemed unlawful, any evidence derived from that search or seizure will almost certainly be kept out of any criminal case against the person whose rights were violated. For example:

See more here:
"Search and Seizure" and the Fourth Amendment - FindLaw

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).

See the article here:
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 more:
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.

The rest is here:
Iowa Senate OKs bill addressing funeral protests

Probable Cause And The Fourth Amendment

By: F

Continued here:
Probable Cause And The Fourth Amendment - Video

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

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

A panel of appellate judges disagreed Thursday about whether an Arkansas prison inmate was entitled to a hearing on his complaint that a visual body-cavity inspection by prison guards violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

Two members of the three-judge panel agreed with U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr.'s decision to dismiss the handwritten, pro-se lawsuit on the grounds that the allegations "failed to rise to a constitutional violation."

But Judge Kermit Bye of Fargo, N.D., disagreed with his fellow panelists at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, writing in a partial dissent that he thinks Marshall should have conducted a "balancing test" to weigh the need for the search against an invasion of inmate Kendrick C. Story's personal rights.

"Despite broad rights of correctional officers to search prisoners, there are limits on when strip searches are appropriate," Bye wrote, citing previous 8th Circuit rulings. In those rulings, the appellate court said district judges may consider less-invasive techniques in deciding whether a strip search was reasonable, found it relevant that a strip search was conducted in a private bathroom, and held that strip searches should be conducted as far from public view as possible without compromising security concerns, in a manner that isn't degrading or humiliating.

In his lawsuit, Story said he was returning to the Williams Correctional Facility from a school at the Pine Bluff unit on April 16, 2013, when officers at the gate told him to remove his clothes, lift his genitals, and bend over and spread his buttocks for a visual body-cavity search. He complained that the search took place in front of other inmates and in view of two security cameras, and that female guards watched through a video feed from cameras in the master control room.

Marshall dismissed the case on July 30, 2013.

U.S. Circuit Judges Steven M. Colloton of Des Moines, Iowa, and Raymond W. Gruender of St. Louis said in their majority ruling affirming the dismissal that the prison guards were entitled to qualified immunity, making it "unnecessary and inefficient" to even consider whether there was a constitutional violation.

"Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments, and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law," the majority opinion said, citing a 2013 ruling.

The majority also said that the U.S. Supreme Court "never has resolved whether convicted inmates retain a Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches while in custody," although it has said it didn't apply to a search of a prison cell because of "the close and continual surveillance of inmates and their cells required to ensure institutional security and internal order."

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, has said inmates retain no rights under the Fourth Amendment regarding visual inspections by guards, but the 8th Circuit has said inmates are entitled to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches of their bodies, the majority opinion noted.

Visit link:
Decision to throw out suit affirmed

In a per curiam opinion this week, Grady v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced recent 4th Amendment decisions in holding that when the government physically occupies private property for the purpose of obtaining information, it engages in a search under the 4th Amendment.

The State of North Carolina subjects certain repeat offenders to a lifetime of satellite-based monitoring (SBM) after they complete their sentences. The plaintiff, Torrey Dale Grady, argued that such a program represents a violation of his 4th Amendment rights under recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions, including a 2012 case called United States v. Jones (installing a GPS tracker on a suspects car represents a search) and a 2013 case called Florida v. Jardines (using a drug-sniffing dog on a suspects porch represents a search).

The Supreme Court agreed with Grady that such monitoring constitutes a search. In light of these decisions, it follows that a state also conducts a search when it attaches a device to a persons body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individuals movements.

In concluding otherwise, the North Carolina Court of Appeals apparently placed decisive weight on the fact that the States monitoring program is civil in nature. See Jones, ___ N. C. App., at ___, 750 S. E. 2d, at 886 (the instant case involves a civil SBM proceeding). It is well settled, however, that the Fourth Amendments protection extends beyond the sphere of criminal investigations, Ontario v. Quon, 560 U. S. 746, 755 (2010), and the governments purpose in collecting information does not control whether the method of collection constitutes a search. A building inspector who enters a home simply to ensure compliance with civil safety regulations has undoubtedly conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The court also rejected North Carolinas somewhat strange argument that its monitoring program is not meant to collect information:

The satellite-based monitoring program shall use a system that provides all of the following: (1) Time-correlated and continuous tracking of the geographic location of the subject . (2) Reporting of subjects violations of prescriptive and proscriptive schedule or location requirements. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. 14208.40(c).

The States program is plainly designed to obtain information. And since it does so by physically intruding on a subjects body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search.

The Court did not, however, examine whether the program constitutes an unreasonable, and therefore unconstitutional, search. The case was remanded to a lower court to sort through that issue.

Notwithstanding the reasonability issue, this ruling reinforces a heartening trend in 4th Amendment jurisprudence away from the nebulous reasonable expectation of privacy standard and toward a more concrete common-law trespass standard, at least insofar as searches of private property are concerned.

See original here:
Supreme Court Reinforces Jones Conception of 4th Amendment

DO TSA #39;s THREAT-SPOTTING TIPS THREATEN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT?: Jake MacAulay
Have you ever thought about who could be a potential threat in an airport? Well, according to the Transportation Security Administration that #39;s pretty much anyone who #39;s breathing. The...

By: TheAmericanView

Continue reading here:
DO TSA's THREAT-SPOTTING TIPS THREATEN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT?: Jake MacAulay - Video