Unit VII
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Columbia Southern University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
6301
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by bigmama2020
1
Unit VII: Fourth Amendment
Columbia Southern University
CMJ 6301: Constitutional Law for Criminal Justice
Dr. Mark Logan
September 19, 2023
Unit VII: Fourth Amendment
2
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by federal, state, or local governments. The rights afford to
the people in the Fourth Amendment assures the limitations of the police to search and or seize property and homes. Due to the open interpretation of the word unreasonable, the United States
Supreme Court must get involved to rule on what is deemed constitutional. This paper will examine several of those landmark cases. Home Searches
In 1996 Mark Knights and his friend Steven Simoneau were identified as suspects of vandalism at Pacific Gas & Electric (PG &E) facilities in Napa County California. The acts of vandalism began not long after Mark Knights had been accused of theft of services after his services had been discontinued due to non-payment. On May 24, 1998, Mr. Knights and Mr. Simoneau were stopped near the PG & E gas line where the deputy observed pipes, tools, gas, and pieces of chain in the truck they were in. When asked for permission to search the truck, Mr. Knights refused. Several days later a pipe bomb exploded near Mr. Knights home. Mr. Knights was placed on probation. June 1
st
, 1998, a PG & E transformer and Pacific Bell telecommunications vault had brass padlocks pried off to allow access and were set on fire using gas accelerants. On June 3
rd
detectives were ordered to do surveillance of Mr. Knights home. One morning Mr. Simoneau was seen exciting the home carrying three cylindrical items across the street to the Napa River. The deputy heard three large splashes and then witnessed
Mr. Simoneau returning to Mr. Knights’s home without the cylindrical items. Mr. Simoneau then got into his truck and moved it into a different driveway and left residence. The detective observed a Molotov cocktail, a gas can, other explosive materials and two brass padlocks that fit the descriptions of those pried from the transformer vault. The detective seized the truck and obtained a search warrant for the vehicle. Detectives, however, did not get a search warrant for
Mr. Knights’s home prior to searching it because they did not believe one was needed due to
3
him still being on probation. The search of Mr. Knights’s home resulted in a detonation cord, ammunition, chemistry and electrical circuitry manuals, brass padlocks stamped PG & E, liquid chemicals, pole climbing spurs, and bolt cutters. Mr. Knights was arrested and was indicted by a
federal grand jury. Mr. Knights’ attorney immediately moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the warrantless searching of Mr. Knights’s home. The District Court suppressed the evidence because the search was not based on anything that related to his probationary crime. The Nineth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the decision of the lower court. The Supreme Court, however, unanimously reversed the decision. “The Court held that the government’s interest in preventing crime, combined with Knights’s diminished expectation of privacy, required only reasonable suspicion to make the search of Knight’s apartment reasonable under the Fourth Amendment” (Skrmetti, 2002, Section IV, para. 1).
Motor Vehicle Searches
In an effort to combat the overwhelming flow of drugs into the city, in 1998 the City of Indianapolis implemented roadway checkpoint in which officers would check for suspicious activities during the stops. These checkpoints were conducted during the day, and it was clearly marked miles prior to the checkpoints that there was narcotics checkpoint ahead and motorist should be prepared to stop. The participating officers should approach the vehicles and
notify the driver of the purpose of the checkpoint. They would look for any obvious signs of driver impairments, conduct open view of the contents of the vehicle, as well as have the drug sniffing K9s do a walk around the vehicle. James Edmond and Joell Palmer filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Indianapolis on behalf of motorist that were stopped in September of 1998. In City of Indianapolis v. Emond, the lawsuit claimed that the Fourth Amendment rights had been violated and sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
The District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the motion for injunctive relief and found that the checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The decision was based on the safety of the public outweighed any interference with individual rights or liberties. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision claiming that the checkpoints were used to entrap suspected drug dealers and that because no specific person was under suspicion the searches were discriminatory in nature. The Supreme Court agreed with the Seventh Circuit’s opinion. Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion for the Court and noted that under the Fourth Amendment “searches and seizures must be reasonable and are generally deemed to be unreasonable when the authorities conducting the search or seizure have failed to establish individualized suspicion of wrongdoing” (Mulligan, 2002, section III, para. 4).
Public School Searches
In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding a 13-year-old girl was accused by another student to providing prescription ibuprofen. The student that accused Savanna Redding of providing the pills, Marissa Glines, was the first student that was searched by the school nurse and a female administrator. Savanna Redding was then called to the office and searched by the school nurse and a female administrator. Both girls had been instructed to remove their clothing and open their bras and underpants so they could be searched as well. Nothing was found as a result of these searches. Savanna Redding’s mother sued the nurse, the administrative assistance and the school district claiming that search violated her daughter’s
Fourth Amendment rights.
The District Court granted the summary judgment for all defendants based on their qualified unity. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals initially affirmed the decision. Upon reconsideration the Ninth Circuit partially reversed the decision and found the assistant principal, Kerry Wilson, liable of violating Savanna Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights but
5
upheld the immunity for the nurse and the female administrative assistance. The Supreme Court
agreed that the search violated the Fourth Amendment rights. The Court stated that the search of the backpack and outer clothing was appropriate due to reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The Court rejected the claim that Redding was not strip searched even though she did not strip completely the search that took place was close enough to a strip search. The Court took issue with the strip search and noted that such could result in serious damage emotionally to children. Police Use of Excessive Force in Searches
The case of Torres v. Madrid is an example of a case taking place in a unusual place under unusual circumstances. On July 15, 2014, officers observed Roxanne Torres and a friend standing by a car. The officers recognized that neither party was subjected the warrant they were executing. Upon approaching Torres and her friend, the friend left. Torres who was experiencing methamphetamine withdrawals got into the driver’s seat of the vehicle. Torres in her altered mental state did not recognize the officers as police officers, she just noticed their guns. She feared they were carjackers. One of the officers approached the car and attempted to open the car door to which Torres responded by driving away. The four officers then fired a total of thirteen bullets into Torres’s vehicle hitting her in her back twice which left her left arm temporarily paralyzed. Torres sought medical treatment and was arrested on numerous charges
the next day. Torres filed suit against two of the officers for use of excessive force.
The District Court of New Mexico granted the police officers’ summary motion based on qualified immunity. The court stated that Torres had a duty to show the officers’ conduct violated
the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that she had been seized and that her seizure had been unreasonable. The court stated that Torres had not been seized and therefore her rights had not been violated. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court. The Supreme Court disagreed and vacated the judgment. Chief Justice
6
Roberts noted “that application of physical force to the body of a person with the intent to restrain constitutes a seizure, even with the force does not subdue the person” (Harvard Law Review, 2021, para.5)
Conclusion
The United States Constitution is a living document that is constantly subjected to individual interpretations. The Fourth Amendment has been one that has been intrenched in controversy when it comes to unreasonable searches and seizures especially in more recent years. Police officers and their actions have been intensely scrutinized by the general public recently. The United States Supreme Court is a non-bias group of law scholars that help to interpret the Constitution on a legal basis. What constitutes a violation of rights has and will continue evolve with society. While the premises that the Founding Father’s set forth has not changed, the way that those premises are applied to our ever-changing culture has changed and adapted to current times.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
References
Bradley, C. M. (2009). Court rejects strip searches in schools. Trial
, 45
(10), 48+. https://link-
gale-com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/apps/doc/A238558784/LT?
u=oran95108&sid=bookmark-LT&xid=ba2d4d04
Constitutional Law - Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure - Police Misconduct - Torres v. Madrid. (2021). Harvard Law Review
, 135
(1), 363+. https://link-gale-
com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/apps/doc/A683074840/LT?
u=oran95108&sid=bookmark-LT&xid=9cf5b93f
Mulligan, A. (2002). City of Indianapolis v. Edmond: the constitutionality of drug interdiction checkpoints. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
, 93
(1), 227+. https://link-gale-
com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/apps/doc/A105440474/LT?
u=oran95108&sid=bookmark-LT&xid=fcfaad9e
Skrmetti, J. T. (2002). The keys to the castle: a new standard for warrantless home searches in United States v. Knights. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
, 25
(3), 1201+. https://link-gale-com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/apps/doc/A89163076/LT?
u=oran95108&sid=bookmark-LT&xid=ffa64274