In this assignment, you put the skills you learned this week to the test. You will view the same video you watched in Week 4 and analyze it for Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure. Remember that in Fourth Amendment analysis, facts are crucial. You may want to watch the video several times to memorize the facts before you write your answer.
Search and seizure of digital evidence
Identify different forms of digital evidence and how it is collected.
talk about cell phones , computer/ disk, digital camera, and GPS. I’m going a PowerPoint. I do not need an introduction or conclusion.
This list of 20 drugs known to be impacted by pay-for-delay deals represents the tip of the iceberg. Annual reports by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) indicate that generic versions of as many as 142 brand-name drugs have been delayed by pay-for-delay arrangements between drug manufacturers since 2005. However, because the details of these deals rarely become public, consumers have largely been kept in the dark about the extent of the problem. Information about these twenty specific drugs affected by pay-for-delay deals has been made public thanks to legal challenges brought by the FTC, consumer class action lawsuits, research by legal experts, and public disclosures by drug makers.
The Search and Seizure of Private Papers: in the term prior to Warden, may emphasize the privacy aspects of the Fifth Amendment in search and seizure situations.
They can have a search warrant to go into a premises and confiscate illegal paraphernalia or when doing a routine traffic stop an officer might become suspicious of activity that is not normal and conduct a search of the vehicle to see why the driver is not acting normal....
SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAWS
UNITED STATES v. LEON
Issue: Whether evidence collected by enforcement officers using a search warrant given by a detached and neutral judge but eventually found not to be supported with a probable cause should be omitted from the other evidence?
Ruling: The judges upheld the evidence produced in the court.
Analysis: Using a tipoff from a local resident about drug trafficking at private residences, police officers started surveillance of Sanchez and Steward’s homes to monitor illegal activities. The police also included Alberto Leon and Ricardo Del Castillo in their surveillance due to their interactions with the first suspects. The police sought for an arrest warrant on the four suspects’ properties using the surveillance records and information from an informant. The search yielded considerable quantities of drugs from the suspects who were arrested promptly. However, the suspects’ defense team faulted the arrest based on weaknesses in the arrest warrant. A review of the warrant found it invalid since the police did not have a probable cause to initiate the search and the police relied on allegations from an untested informant. Under the exclusionary rule, improperly obtained evidence should be omitted during criminal trials. The evidence gathered in the search was sustained since the police conducted the search in accordance with the warrant provided by the magistrate, meaning they acted in good faith.
Conclusion: The United States v. Leon case presents the issue of the good faith exception in performing search warrants by law enforcement officials. The case points out that for evidence to be valid, the search warrants should be from a detached and impartial judge. The search warrant should also be based on probable causes, and the affiants should provide truthful information. In seeking for search warrants, law enforcers should avoid misconduct and malice in searching private residences. However, it would be irresponsible for the judiciary to dismiss evidence collected under invalid search warrants if the police did not act based on malice. Judges cannot dismiss the evidence of deadly weapons, drugs, or violent crimes even in situations where defendants prove the invalidity of a search warrant. Consequently, there is need to review the exclusionary rule to allow evidence collected by officers acting in good faith to be presented in court.
TERRY v. OHIO
Issue: Did the police violate the Fourth Amendment in conducting the impromptu stop and frisk on Terry and his colleagues?
Ruling: The court upheld the ruling that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis: While on patrol, a police officer noticed Terry and his two colleagues acting in a suspicious manner. The officer believed that the three individuals were preparing for a robbery at a local store and he decided to accost them for a random check. The officer discovered weapons on two men on frisking the three men. This led to Terry’s arrest for possession of concealed illegal weapons. The defense team sought to suppress the charges of carrying hidden weapons arguing that the search was illegal. However, the court affirmed the weapons charges by arguing that the collected evidence could be used against Terry. The court noted that the officer was right to suspect Terry due to his questionable conduct and that the officer had a duty of protecting himself by preventing a potential felony.
Conclusion: In the Terry v. Ohio case, the arresting officer did not conduct a full search on the suspect and only acting to confirm his suspicions. In situations where an officer suspects a felony in progress, the law allows the officer to stop an individual and ask questions. If the enforcement officer believes that the suspect is armed, the officer can conduct a search to retrieve the weapons. Such a search does not constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment since it was based on reasonable premises.
4th Amendment-Search and Seizure In the late 1700’s the 4th Amendment was written due to strong objections to the Writs of Assistance, “or general warrants”.
The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure essays The Fourth Amendment search and seizure is mainly about All papers are for research and reference purposes.
Essays On Search And Seizure This means that they are not only ready to act as a cheap essay writer but are also qualified if you need research papers.
In Macbeth, the play's theme is the strife created by the wrongful seizure of power and the corruption of morals of those who acquire power by evil means....
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no .
Cooley’s Inviolability of Telegraphic Correspondence advocated for protecting correspondence sent via this relatively new technology from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” As support, Cooley turned first to the influential English case of Entick v....
Plenary power and the accompanying seizure and use of indigenous land bases have violated the rights of Native Americans and demonstrated the inability of the federal government to manage Indian affairs.
The Fourth Amendment and the difficulties associated with interpreting the specific words and phrases pose enormous dilemmas and confusion around the topic. One of the difficulties the e-Activity mentioned was search and seizure. Just how much power should our government have when it comes to search and seizure? When analogies and metaphors are used to describe why a situation would be subject to search and seizure, it begins to get hazy for a person to understand the reasoning behind the intrusion. Prime example, mail versus email. Written mail is seen as something that is tangible. This means we have a good idea how packages and letters get circulated mostly because the components of the operation are tangible and subject to physical examination. With this knowledge, we gain a slight measure of assurance from this understanding that violations of our expectation of confidentiality in our letters would be highly unfeasible for the government to execute without a warrant. The same cannot be said with emails because they are intangible. Emails are intangible because we cannot be physical touch or hold an email. But we still view emails as “letters”. Because we view them as letters, do emails follow the same expectation of privacy as our tangible written letters. It is all about the wording and how individuals view things that make upholding the Fourth Amendment challenging.
Search and Seizure Reliability The fourth amendment states that “the right…to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.