Hudson V. Palmer

On October 31, 1963 a Cleveland Police Detective stopped and arrested three men outside a department store window. The officer charged two of the men with carrying concealed weapons. One of the men involved in this stop and frisk, John W. Terry, challenged the ruling, stating that it was against his 4th Amendment rights to be searched for weapons by an off duty police officer without probable cause for arrest. On June 10, 1968 the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the policeman stating he had more than enough reason to stop these men and conduct a search. This case has been used as a guideline in many other rulings since 1968 that involve what may or may not be an “unreasonable search and seizure” under the 4th Amendment.

There are two cases that are being compared; New Jersey v. T.L.O. and Safford v. Redding. The rulings in both of these cases were just. In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O. the defendant (T.L.O.) was found guilty for smoking cigarettes and for possessing drug paraphernalia in her purse. In court, her lawyer argued that the way that her purse was searched, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since she was a delinquent and her rights were not, in fact, violated, she was sentenced to probation for one year. In the Safford v. Redding case the defendant was strip-searched for ibuprofen by her school officials, which was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She was proven innocent from her charges and in turn, she filed suit against her school district and the school officials involved in the case. Redding claimed that her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Both cases have a few things in common as well as many differences.

Issue: Whether respondent’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated when he was subjected to a search of his person, albeit under probable cause, without a warrant and prior to a formal arrest.

the weapons voided the defendant's fourth amendment, stating officer McFadden had no probable cause to stop them. The motion to suppress was overruled on the basis that McFadden had the benefit of experience. The prosecution the argued that the search incident to the stop was legal because it was purely for the officer’s protection. The court then made a point to distinguish an investigative stop from an arrest, and a frisk from a full search. It was established that McFadden had the right to pat them down due to a reasonable belief that Terry and Chilton could be armed. After the court denied the motion to suppress Terry and Chilton pled guilty and waived their jury trial. Terry and Chilton appealed, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed it,

The first issue in this case was whether or not the evidence collected in the case should have been suppressed or not. When Moore was first arrested the vehicle in which he was driving was then searched. Moore thought that the evidence should have been suppressed do to the fact that he was arrested on a misdemeanor charge where there doesn’t have to be an arrest made. Since the officers arrested him and then preceded to search his car Moore believed that this was a violation of his fourth amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. According to the case Gerstein v. Pugh and Brinegar v. United States if arresting officers have probable cause that a person committed even a minor offense in his presence the arrest is deemed constitutional reasonable. The case California v.

The Ninth Circuit set aside the conviction and returned it back to the trial court. The district court ruled that thermal imaging was not a Fourth Amendment search. The Ninth Circuit decided that it was a search. Then returned the case again to decide if there was enough evidence for probable cause. The Ninth Circuit reheard the case and agreed with the trial court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Here, Florence questions why persons in custody for minor offenses should be treated as the rest of the hardened inmate population, in which routine admission requires the surrender of intimate bodily privacy? Instead, Florence maintains that officials may only conduct such an intricate search with reasonable suspicion of withheld contraband during the intake process, as he believes otherwise is enacting an unlawful search or “strip-search”. Therefore, Florence

During the serch of his cell phone they found a multude of evidence including pictures, videos and texts of another car that Riley owned that was involved in a murder that took place earlier. Also later testing found out that the handguns were the ones used the murder where also Riley’s car was used. Riley was a suspect of the murder but eyewitnesses couldn’t pin Riley to be one of the shooters. During the trial for the murder Riley’s lawyer tried to get rid of the evidence but the judge allowed the evidence to remain in the trial and also the retrial stating that it was againts the fourth amendment but the court ruled that it wasn;t because of the SITA doctorine, which allowed a officer to search a arrested person and the area if the officer could be in danger. The court said since his phone was taken during a search incident to arrest that the officer didn’t need a warrant. Later Riley was convicted of shooting at a occupied vehicle attempted murder and assault with a semi-automatic firearm and faced 15 years to life in prison. His appeal was heard by The California court of appeal, fourth district, divison one and they all agreed with the

Specify the reasons for preventative detention, and describe the forms of release from jail pending trial.

The Supreme Court quite recently accepted the idea that the constitution requires a greater justification for strip searches than for less-disturbing searches. In Safford v. Redding, which was decided in 2009, the court said that searches exposing breasts and pelvic are were categorically clear, requiring definite elements of justification (Chettiar, 2012). However, anyone admitted into the general population of a city or county jail has to undergo strip search.

TYPE OF ACTION: Review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a lower court ruling that evidence should be suppressed as a result of a violation of the Fourth Amendment failed to give Miranda before questioning. The state (Withrow) sought to overturn the motion to suppress that was upheld by the U.S. District Court of Appeals.

The case of Miranda vs Arizona is responsible for it as well as its popularity in entertainment. Every police officer today must read an arrested individuals 5th amendment rights so they may be able to interrogate them legally and make their possible self incrimination valid. If they are not read their rights then the case police officers present in course is overruled. This presents a loophole in the criminal justice

Dworkinian’s try to limit the indeterminacy by accounting for principles and would say that the rule that stands is the rule that fits the settled law of the soundest theory. Realists counterargue that while there may be legal determinacy when applying rule to small aspects of the law, the law in general needs to be cohesive in order to create what Dworkin calls, “the Soundest Theory of Law.” In this case, it is not clear as to what the soundest theory is, should the government decide because they make the broadest rule of the land, or do we let the prison itself decide since they routinely deal with strip search regulations and policies and would have a deeper understanding of what the law should be. Altman would say that Justice Kennedy is correct in making his decision because there can be no soundest theory of law due to the competing rules.

Miranda became part of this unfair justice system, police then arrested him. After arresting him Miranda was sent into interrogation for two hours, later police came out with a full pledge of relating Miranda’s confession. In this confession Miranda sign a paper that said that he confessed voluntary and that he understood all of his rights. However the confession did not stated what does rights were, which intrude that Miranda was unaware of his rights. His attorney said that since he was unaware of his rights the confession was to be desposed. The court denied since there was no other prove but Miranda’s confession to end the case or support his allegation. Miranda was sent to prison to serve 20 to 30

In 1976, the Mecham v. Fano decision gave a definition to restraining hands doctrine and described the prisoner is to adhere rules applied by the correctional facility (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014). Similarly, the 1991 Wilson v. Seiter decision made by the Supreme Court resulted in that conditions in prison that are uncomfortable are constitutional and simply part of the penalty (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014). Consequently, the Turner v. Safley case resulted in that the Supreme Court ruling allowed marriages among prisoners but gave the power of restrictions to prison officials in lieu of compromising safety to the facility, prisoners, and employees (Siegel & Bartollas,