Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a police officer's mistaken idea of the law doesn't make an arrest and a search invalid, as long as the officer's understanding of the law was reasonable. The case evolved from a traffic stop in 2009, in which Nicholas Heien was pulled over on Interstate 77 in North Carolina by a county sheriff's deputy because one of his brake lights was out. After getting permission to search the car, the deputy found a baggie of cocaine, and Heien was charged with drug trafficking.

But it turned out North Carolina law did not require cars to have two brake lights. The state law said they must have "a" stop lamp on the rear and elsewhere referred to "the" stop lamp, meaning the deputy was apparently wrong about the law. Heien's lawyer backed by civil liberties groups said if a law wasn't being broken, there was no authority to arrest him or conduct a search. But by a 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court said the arrest and the search were valid, even if the officer was wrong about the law. The Fourth Amendment bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures, the court said. "To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials," said the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The lone dissenter, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said an officer's mistake about the law, no matter how reasonable, "cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary" to justify an arrest. The nation's courts were sharply divided on this issue, though most said if an officer is wrong, the arrest doesn't count.

Supreme Court opinion: Heien vs. North Carolina

Pete Williams

First published December 15 2014, 8:18 AM

See original here:
Police Mistakes Can Lead to Good Arrests, Court Says

Dollree Mapp, who challenged a police search of her home, leading to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1961 that extended the exclusionary rule protecting citizens from illegal searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, died Oct. 31 in Conyers, Ga. She was 91.

Her death, which was confirmed to news outlets by her family, was not widely reported until this week. The cause was not disclosed, but she had dementia for many years.

Tough and street savvy, Ms. Mapp spent much of her life on the margins of society and had trouble with the law on several occasions.

On May 23, 1957, plainclothes police officers who were looking for a suspect in a bombing knocked on her door in Cleveland. The explosion a few days earlier had been at the home of a Cleveland gambling figure, Don King, who later went to prison for manslaughter and still later became a well-known boxing promoter.

Ms. Mapp refused to let the officers enter her house without a search warrant.

They returned three hours later. She demanded to see the warrant and then grabbed the paper from an officers hand and stuffed it inside her dress.

In the ensuing struggle, an officer retrieved the paper while Ms. Mapp shouted, Take your hand out of my dress!

The police searched and ransacked Ms. Mapps house, finding what they believed to be gambling paraphernalia and pornography. Ms. Mapp insisted that drawings of nude women and books with such titles as Memoirs of a Hotel Man and Affairs of a Troubadour belonged to a previous tenant. Nonetheless, she was arrested and taken away in handcuffs.

She was acquitted of the gambling charges but, after only 20 minutes of deliberation, a jury found her guilty of possession of lewd and obscene materials. She was sentenced to one to seven years in prison. A man suspected in the bombing case was set free.

Ms. Mapp lost several appeals before her case, Mapp v. Ohio, was argued before the Supreme Court in March 1961. Much of the legal debate was over whether Ohios obscenity law violated the First Amendment.

Read more:
Dollree Mapp, figure in landmark Supreme Court decision in 1961, dies at 91

The Fourth Amendment Of The Constitution Is Under Attack

By: Yawauniah Jerusalem

Read the original:
The Fourth Amendment Of The Constitution Is Under Attack - Video

The Fourth Amendment ( goverment class Project)
Description.

By: Duy Phan

View original post here:
The Fourth Amendment ( goverment class Project) - Video

With law school exam season finishing up, heres a new Fourth Amendment decision with facts that seem straight from a law school exam: United States v. Camou, authored by Judge Pregerson. In the new decision, the Ninth Circuit suppressed evidence from a 2009 search of a cell phone taken from a car incident to arrest at the border. The new ruling might not be the final word in the case. But the court does decide an important question along the way: The Ninth Circuit rules that if the police have probable cause to search a car under the automobile exception, they cant search cell phones found in the car.

I. The Facts

In 2009, officers arrested Camou at a border inspection checkpoint for hiding an undocumented immigrant in his truck. Minutes after the arrest, Camous phone rang several times from a number known to be from one of Camous co-conspirators. When Camou invoked his right to remain silent, officers decided to search the phone for evidence without a warrant. The phone search occurred 80 minutes after Camous arrest. The officer who searched the phone first searched through the call logs, then turned to the videos and photos. The officer scrolled through about 170 photos and saw that about 30 to 40 were child pornography. The officer stopped looking through the phone at that point and alerted authorities about the child pornography. Four days later, a warrant was obtained to search the cell phone for images of child pornography, leading to child porn charges against Camou.

The issue before the court is whether to suppress the fruits of the initial warrantless phone search as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit rules that the cell phone search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the evidence must be suppressed.

II. The Ruling

Judge Pregersons analysis has five steps.

First, the search cannot be justified as a search incident to arrest because it occurred too late after the arrest and after too many intervening events had occurred. Eighty minutes had elapsed, and Camou and his co-defendants had been arrested, processed, and brought to interview rooms. According to Pregerson, that made the search too far removed from the initial arrest for the search-incident-to-arrest exception to apply.

Second, the exigent circumstances doctrine cannot apply because Riley v. California establishes that exigent circumstances generally wont justify a cell phone search and in any event, the scope of the search went beyond the exigency.

Third, the automobile exception cannot apply because the automobile exception does not apply to cell phones. This is an important legal ruling. Here, the Ninth Circuit extends the cell phones are different rationale of Riley to the context of automobile searches. This is an interesting and unsettled question I blogged about before, so its worth pausing to give a taste of Pregersons reasoning:

Given the Courts extensive analysis of cell phones as containers and cell phone searches in the vehicle context, we find no reason not to extend the reasoning in Riley from the search incident to arrest exception to the vehicle exception. Just as [c]ell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestees person, so too do cell phones differ from any other object officers might find in a vehicle. Id. at 2489. Todays cell phones are unlike any of the container examples the Supreme Court has provided in the vehicle context. Whereas luggage, boxes, bags, clothing, lunch buckets, orange crates, wrapped packages, glove compartments, and locked trunks are capable of physically holding another object, see Belton, 453 U.S. at 460 n.4, [m]odern cell phones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse, Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 248889. In fact, a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house. Id. at 2491 (emphasis in original).

Read the rest here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Cell phones exempt from the automobile search exception, Ninth Circuit rules

Dollree Mapp, the appellant in a groundbreaking case, Mapp v. Ohio, which fundamentally strengthened our Fourth Amendment rights, has passed away.

Despite being in a landmark Supreme Court case, it took about a month after Mapp's death for the media to take notice. The New York Times reports that Mapp was believed to be 90 or 91 when she died October 31 in or near Conyers, Georgia.

In remembrance, let's review the Mapp case and all it has done for civil rights.

Mapp Defied Police Wanting to Search her Home

More than 57 years ago, police officers showed up at Dollree Mapp's home in Cleveland, Ohio, demanding that they be let inside. Authorities believed that there was a bomber hiding inside the home, and they requested that Mapp let them in. She refused, asking for a search warrant which police never really produced. The whole incident ended with police forcing their way into Mapp's home, searching her and her daughter's room, and eventually arresting Mapp based on some sexually explicit materials they found.

Four years later, Mapp had appealed her obscenity conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps hoping to get it thrown out on the basis of a First Amendment free speech argument. But lo and behold, the Supreme Court took a significant look at the police searches in Mapp's case and determined that they violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

And even more importantly, they determined that the exclusionary rule applied, throwing out the evidence gained from the illegal search of Mapp's house.

Warrantless Search Evidence Excluded in All Courts

Prior to Mapp, the exclusionary rule had only been successfully used to exclude evidence that was the fruit of an illegal search or seizure in federal court. The rule came out of a 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, which, prior to Mapp, did not apply to state police or state courts.

With state police and prosecutors now threatened with the thought of losing their cases as the result of Fourth Amendment violations, more care would be taken to safeguard suspects' rights -- at least hypothetically. Future courts would carve out exceptions to the exclusionary rule that were seen as eroding Mapp (inevitable discovery, good faith on a defective warrant, etc.)

See the original post here:
Mapp v. Ohio: Plaintiff in Landmark Civil Rights Case Dies

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a Rapid City police officer's appeal, clearing the way for a trial on a former landfill employee's claim that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights four years ago.

City Attorney Joel Landeen said Wednesday that the city supports Lt. Peter Ragnone 100 percent and is prepared to go to trial. Ragnone was the detective assigned in 2009 to investigate allegations of fraud at the Rapid City landfill.

As a result of Ragnone's grand jury testimony, scale house attendant Randall Meidinger was indicted on 2010 for forgery and grand theft. The city fired Meidinger in 2009 after Ragnone reported that Meidinger had confessed to cutting a garbage hauler breaks on landfill fees.

A jury acquitted Meidinger of all charges in 2011. A civil suit brought by the city against Meidinger was later dismissed.

Ragnone is the only defendant left in a federal lawsuit filed in 2012 by Meidinger.

In September, U.S. ChiefDistrict Judge Jeffrey Viken dismissed Meidinger's claims against Mayor Sam Kooiker, former Police Chief Steve Allender and former landfill supervisor John Leahy.

Viken also rejected Meidinger's claim that Ragnone violated the 14th Amendment by conducting a reckless investigation and falsified evidence against him,but the judge said a jury should decide if Ragnone's testimony was credible when he told the grand jury that Meidinger had confessed and described a waste material as being only sawdust.

"At this point, we don't believe Peter Ragnone did anything wrong," Landeen said.

Ragnone's appeal of Viken's decision delayed the progress of the District Court case until this week.

Meidinger's legal team welcomed the appellate court's decision.

The rest is here:
Court dismisses city's appeal in Meidinger suit

Super Funny Japanese Parody of TSA Airport Security Hilarious.mp4
http://adf.ly/70849/mcnwithfullapprove Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against...

By: funny show

Read more here:
Super Funny Japanese Parody of TSA Airport Security Hilarious.mp4 - Video

Fourth Amendment Commercial

By: Alexandra Hollander

View original post here:
Fourth Amendment Commercial - Video

Follow CBSMIAMI.COM:Facebook|Twitter

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/NSF) Taxpayers are on the hook for at least $307,000 and perhaps much more to cover legal expenses in Gov. Rick Scotts repeated failed efforts to convince courts that a onetime campaign pledge to drug-test welfare recipients is constitutional.

A federal appeals court last week ruled that the states mandatory, suspicion-less drug testing of applicants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program is an unconstitutional violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

It was the fourth court decision against the state since the law something Scott campaigned on during his first bid for office the year before went into effect in mid-2011. A federal judge put the law on hold less than four months after it passed, siding with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Luis Lebron, a single father and Navy veteran.

Thus far, the state has racked up $307,883.62 in legal fees and costs in the case, according to Department of Children and Families spokeswoman Michelle Glady. That does not include potentially hefty charges for legal fees from the ACLU.

Scott has not yet said whether he will appeal the unanimous ruling last week by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The governor could seek an en banc review by the full appeals court or take the issue directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Republican legislative leaders said Monday they support Scott on the drug-testing issue.

I think its appropriate to defend the law that was passed by a bipartisan majority of members of the House, House Speaker Steve Crisafulli, R-Merritt Island, said. The law was approved 78-38 in the House and 26-11 in the Senate, with support from two House Democrats and no Senate Democrats.

Senate President Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, supports the policy and the governors defense of the law, which was passed by a democratically elected legislature, Gardiner spokeswoman Katie Betta said.

But ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon, who blamed the governor and the Legislature for the cost to taxpayers, blasted Scott for refusing to back down.

See the article here:
Taxpayer Tab Mounts In Welfare Drug-Test Legal Fight