PerfectCustomPapers | Research Fourth Amendment cases

Research Fourth Amendment cases

Read the following case scenario:

Linda Rhodes and her boyfriend, Joe Marshall, were arrested as a result of a drug raid. Linda was making dinner for her children, who were with her in the kitchen, and Joe, who was in the living room, when the police, led by Sgt. Rick Rodgers, broke down her door. Linda owns the house. Joe has no ownership interest in the house but has been living there for the last year. The police found several ounces of cocaine, packaging material, scales, and a large amount of currency in small denominations in Linda and Joe’s bedroom. The cocaine was found in a dresser drawer, but the rest of the items were on the bed in plain view. Both Linda and Joe were charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute it.

Joe Marshall has been arrested twice before for drug offenses. The first arrest was three years ago when he was charged with intent to sell, to which he pled guilty to possession and received five years’ probation. The second arrest was six months ago; however, the case was dropped for lack of evidence when the police evidence room lost the drugs.

Joe was also arrested three times for domestic violence: five years ago and three years ago against his former wife, and three months ago for beating Linda. All the cases were dropped when the victims refused to testify.

Linda has been arrested twice, eight and five years ago, for possession of marijuana. The first case was dropped when she identified her dealer. She pled guilty to the second charge and received one year of probation.

Linda works for a maid service, cleaning private homes. Joe has no known employment and claims to be a musician. Linda’s income from the maid service is the only known source of income for the household.

On the day in question, the police broke down the door without knocking or announcement. There was no other damage to the house, but the house was turned “upside down.” The police properly collected and tagged all of the evidence and immediately transferred it to the police evidence room. Both Joe and Linda claim to have no knowledge of the cocaine.

The police questioned Linda’s daughters, Sally (age 3) and Sara (age 9). Sally was crying and had no coherent statement about the incident. Sara told the police that she saw Joe with the “white powder” and that he said it was for a bubble bath and a surprise for mommy and that Sara should “keep it secret.”

An informant told Sgt. Rodgers about the cocaine. The informant’s name was not revealed, but he has provided reliable information in the past. The police were watching the house while waiting for a warrant. They claim they heard screams and decided to enter the house due to the knowledge that young children were in the house. The warrant was delivered one hour later.

Research Fourth Amendment cases involving searches, warrants, and exigent circumstances.

In your paper,

Define probable cause and its relationship to determining the legality of a search.
Explain the purpose and application of the exclusionary rule.
Identify whether Joe had legal standing to object to the search.
Describe whether the cash, packaging material, and scales admissible at trial if the police rely on exigent circumstances.
Explain whether the evidence of the cocaine is admissible at trial.
Identify whether the police had the right to go into the bedroom when relying on exigent circumstances.
4th Amendment Application, the “Case of the Bad Boyfriend” paper

Sample Answer

4th Amendment Application: The “Case of the Bad Boyfriend”

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that the police cannot search your person or property without a warrant, unless there are exigent circumstances that make it necessary to search without a warrant.

Full Answer Section

Probable Cause and the Legality of a Search

In order for a warrantless search to be legal, the police must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. Probable cause is a less demanding standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is still a high standard. The police must be able to articulate specific facts and circumstances that lead them to believe that a crime has been committed.

The Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits the use of evidence that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule is designed to deter the police from violating the Fourth Amendment. If the police know that they will not be able to use the evidence they obtain in a search, they are less likely to conduct illegal searches.

Joe’s Legal Standing to Object to the Search

In order to challenge the legality of a search, a person must have legal standing to object to the search. Legal standing means that the person has a personal stake in the outcome of the case. In this case, Joe has legal standing to object to the search because he was present in the house when the search was conducted.

The Admissibility of the Cash, Packaging Material, and Scales

The cash, packaging material, and scales were found in plain view in the bedroom. This means that the police did not need a warrant to see these items. However, the police cannot use these items as evidence at trial unless they can show that they had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed before they entered the bedroom.

The Admissibility of the Cocaine

The cocaine was found in a dresser drawer in the bedroom. This means that the police needed a warrant to search the dresser drawer. The police cannot use the cocaine as evidence at trial unless they can show that they had a warrant to search the dresser drawer or that there were exigent circumstances that made it necessary to search the dresser drawer without a warrant.

The Police’s Right to Go into the Bedroom

The police claimed that they went into the bedroom because they heard screams. However, the police did not provide any evidence to support this claim. The police also did not have a warrant to search the bedroom. Therefore, the police did not have the right to go into the bedroom.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evidence of the cash, packaging material, and scales may be admissible at trial, but the evidence of the cocaine is likely inadmissible. The police did not have the right to go into the bedroom, and they did not have probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed before they entered the bedroom. Therefore, the cocaine was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and it is likely inadmissible at trial.

Research on Fourth Amendment Cases Involving Searches, Warrants, and Exigent Circumstances

The following are some Fourth Amendment cases that involve searches, warrants, and exigent circumstances:

Katz v. United States (1967): This case established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test for determining whether a search is unreasonable.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): This case established the Miranda rights that must be read to suspects before they are interrogated.
Wong Sun v. United States (1963): This case held that the exclusionary rule applies to derivative evidence that is obtained as a result of an illegal search.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961): This case made the exclusionary rule applicable to state courts.
Exigent Circumstances (various cases): This doctrine allows the police to conduct a warrantless search if there are exigent circumstances, such as the need to prevent the destruction of evidence or the need to protect someone from harm.

These are just a few of the many Fourth Amendment cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court. These cases provide guidance on how the Fourth Amendment should be applied in different situations.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer

No More Worries!

Paper Formatting

No Lateness!

Our Guarantees

Research Fourth Amendment cases

Sample Answer

Full Answer Section

This question has been answered.

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Why Choose Us