6.+Search+and+Seizure

VI. Search and Seizure 4th Amendment Katz Washington v Chrisman Terry v Ohio NJ v TLO California v Avecedo

Gregory Garcia Amanda Martin Gabe Leon Vincent Nguyen Search & Seizure

Washington v. Chrisman: In 1978, a policeman in Washington stopped a walking Washington State student who was carrying a bottle of gin. The student, along with the officer, went to his room to get is ID card. But, when the policeman saw the dorm, he noticed that the roommate, Chrisman, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. Chrisman was charged with possession of marijuana and LSD. The Court decided that //** the “plain view” exception **// to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted law enforcement of seize evidence “in a place where the officer has the right to be”. Basically, the officer had the right to be in the individual’s area and was free to seize incriminating evidence. This takes effect today because there are probably numerous cases that relate to this. Now, people don’t have to question, which rights were violated and which weren’t.

Katz v. United States: Charcle Katz used a public telephone for illegal gambling wagers from La to Miami and Boston. Convicted and Appeal because of Right of privacy extended to telephone booths and public places and was it ok to physical intrusion necessary to constitute search. Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Katz. His case made the government wiretapping by both states and federal illegal under the Fourth Amendment warrant require.

NJ v TLO: In 1980 two girls were caught smoking cigarettes in the school bathroom. When brought to the principle their bag was searched and marijuana was found and the girl was charged. However the girls and her family brought the case to court. The court ruled that in public schools students are protected by the 4th amendment and cannot have their bags searched by school officials without a warrant - **// Actually, the court ruled in favor of the school saying school officials didn't need a search warrant or probable cause to conduct a reasonable search of a student ("so long as there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that a student has violated or is violating either the law or the rule of the school." The court reasoned that the interest of the school to maintain order and discipline outweighs the privacy interest of the student. //**

California v. Acevedo: Decision made by the U.S Supreme Court made that stated that the police could only search a car if they had probable cause or a reason to search the car, //** but they didn't need a search warrant since any evidence in a car can more quickly disappear since it is mobile .**//

Fourth Amendment: 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 Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Terry v. Ohio: Terry and two other men were observed by a plain-clothed policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. **// This court case resulted in "pat-downs" being legally to protect officer safety. Don't need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a quick pat-down. //**