Constitutional Law For Criminal Justice Unit VII Assignment

UNIT VII ASSIGNMENT CMJ 6301-21.01.02-3A24-S1-Constitutional Law for Criminal Justice UNIT VII ASSIGNMENT The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that people are to be protected against unreasonable searches and prescribes the procedures by which law enforcement officials can obtain search warrants. The U.S. Constitution is built on the values of the American people and what they believe to be honest and right in this country, the founding fathers worked tirelessly to make sure that all people of the United States be treated fairly and just, which is why and the amendments to the constitution are important and people understand the meaning and importance. What is important to remember with the fourth amendment is that the government and law enforcement cannot search or take a person’s person, home, papers, or effects without a search warrant or probable cause. There are several landmark cases which emphasize the importance of the fourth amendment to the American people and how the evolution of the fourth amendment has taken shape throughout the years. Searches of Homes In 1911, Fremont Weeks was accused of transferring lottery tickets via the mail system, which violated the Criminal Code. In Weeks v. United States (1914), the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained without a warrant from a defendant’s home may not be used in federal criminal trials In the Weeks v. U.S. decision, the Court specifically decided that individuals are protected by the Fourth Amendment even if they have been accused of a crime and the role of law enforcement in agreeance of the fourth amendment is to be regulated in their investigation process however the courts are reluctant to recognize protections from government searches and seizures outside criminal investigations and they are even more reluctant to require probable cause or a warrant for such conduct (“Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) n.d.). In this case it was established that the exclusionary rule, which holds that evidence obtained through an unc onstitutional search or seizure is inadmissible in a criminal trial. In a unanimous decision, the court held that the seizure of items from Weeks’ residence directly violated his constitutional rights: ("Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)," n.d.). This case was important because it held that warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To allow private documents to be seized and then held as evidence against citizens would have meant that the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring the right to be secure against such searches and seizures ("Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), “n.d.). This was the first application of what eventually became known as the “exclusionary rule.” The Weeks case is important because the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures applies to Weeks and the evidence that was seized must be excluded from prosecuting him (“Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), “n.d.). Searches of Motor Vehicles Police officers stopped Karen Simeroth’s car for having expired registration tags and her passenger Bruce Brendlin, who had a warrant out for his arrest, was in possession of methamphetamines, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in the car and on Simeroth’s person. In the landmark Supreme Court case Brendlin v. California, the trial court held that the passenger had not been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes (“Brendlin v. California”, n.d,). The evidence was admitted, and the defendant was convicted (The Court of Appeals reversed, and the California Supreme Court reinstated the drug evidence and the conviction. Brendlin filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained at the traffic stop, claiming that the stop was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (”Brendlin v. California ”, n.d.). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and ruled for California, the courts agre ed that the driver of the vehicle is the only one detained in a traffic stop. The movement of any passengers is also stopped as a practical matter, but the court considered this merely a necessary byproduct of the detention of the driver (“Brendlin v. California”, n.d.). A California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and ruled for California. The court held that the driver of the car is the only person to be detained in a traffic stop. The movement of any passengers has also ceased. It was decided that Brendlin was free to leave the scene of the traffic stop or simply ignore the police however due to the fact that Brendlin was not seized during the traffic stop he was not able to claim that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the police “Brendlin v. California”, n.d.). Public School Searches The 1984 landmark case of New Jersey v. T.L.O., fourteen-year-old student, was recognized by the Supreme Court for the first time, being that the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches of students and their possessions by public school officials. In addition, the Court exempted public school officials from the warrant requirement and the probable cause standard, resulting in the Court’s holding in New Jersey v. T.L.O., high school students are only partially protected from illegal searches and seizures, after the original argument in March of 1984, the Supreme Court restored the case to the calendar for argument After the original argument in March of 1984, the court requested that both parties brief and argue the additional question whether or not the assistant principal of the school violated T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment Rights ( “New Jersey v. T.L.O.”, n.d.). The court heard the argument on October 02, 1984. The Court held that while the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not limited solely to the actions of law enforcement personnel. It also applies to the conduct of public-school officials. Public School teachers act as agents of the students’ parents. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment applies to their actions (“New Jersey v. T.L.O.”, n.d.). The Court also held that students have some legitimate expectation of privacy at school. However, a students’ expectation of privacy at school must be balanced against the needs of school authorities (“New Jersey. T.L.O.”., n.d.). Police Excessive Force Used in Searches The landmark Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor determined that “objective reasonableness standard for when an officer can legally use force on a suspect and how much force can be used. Graham, who was a diabetic had asked his friend, Berry to drive him to the store to buy some orange juice to counteract the insulin reaction that he was experiencing, the friend Berry upon viewing the long line in the store immediately turned around to return to the car and inform Weeks of the long line inside of the store. Officer Connor, a city police officer, became suspicious of the immediate return out of the store from Berry and began to follow the vehicle. Officer Connor made an investigative stop, ordering the two men to wait while he investigates the situation at the store The concern is that whether or not a reasonable officer on the scene would use the same amount of force or greater than the next officer would in the same situation. The Graham v. Connor case helped pave the way for needed improvements to police procedures for stops that would involve force. An officer cannot justify forceful actions based on a hunch or guesswork, instead they must carefully access the situation that they are involved and always be certain of the facts as they are presented to them and not base forceful actions upon their feelings or prejudices. Officers must be objective in the field and reasonable under intense circumstances. Backup police officers arrived on the scene, handcuffed Graham, and ignored attempts from the two men to explain that they were not involved in any crime and that they were simply trying to get orange juice in order to counteract the symptoms that Mr. Graham was experiencing unfortunately during the event Mr. Graham sustained multiple injuries ("Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)," n.d.). CONCLUSION The Fourth Amendment has been highly controversial throughout the existence of the U.S. Constitution and to this day many Americans have filed motions attaining to their rights being violated. However, the U.S. Constitution is tried and true and the Supreme Courts have done their part in clarifying the Fourth Amendment and what it entails to citizens of the United States. Our Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans to us and then to future generations. It is a coherent succession. Each generation must learn anew that the Constitution’s written terms embody ideas and aspirations that must survive more ages than one. We accept our responsibility not to retreat from interpreting the full meaning of the covenant considering all our precedents. We invoke it once again to define the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution’s own promise, the promise of liberty (Epstein et al., 2021). REFERENCES Brendlin v. California. (n.d). Oyez. Retrieved February 5, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-8120 Epstein, L., McGuire, K. T., & Walker, T. G. (2021). Constitutional Law for a Changing America (11th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). Fields, S. (2023). The Fourth Amendment without Police. https://link-galecom.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/apps/doc/A238558784