Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights

QUESTION

Create a timeline of 6 major cases that changed the way law enforcement conducts searches and seizures. The timeline should range at least 50 years, and be saved in Microsoft Word format.

The timeline should include 1-2 paragraph summaries of each case. All sources must be properly cited in APA style

ANSWER

Cases Briefs on Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights

Introduction

Chimel v. California (1969)

The police arrested the defendant Chimel while he was in his home and proceeded to request him for authority to search the house. Chimel did not give them consent, but police officers searched the house. The police seized items used to convict Chimel of burglary. The court argued that when there is probable cause that the items which are the subject of the search may be removed before police obtaining a warrant, police officers can search without a warrant of the area beyond the defendant’s influence.

United States v. Chadwick et al. (1977)

Chadwick and his accomplices were arrested by federal agents while attempting to load a suitcase into a car. There was probable cause to arrest the respondents and belief that the suitcase contained narcotics. About an hour later, the officers searched the suitcase without a warrant, nor were the circumstances urgent and found drugs. The district court granted the respondent a motion questioning the legitimacy of the evidence citing violation of laws. The court held a warrant is required to open a locked suitcase that was seized during an arrest. There has to be probable cause that it contains illegal items.

New York v. Belton (1981)

This case extended the Chimel rule to include vehicles. The ruling increased the police authority to conduct a warrantless search on motorists who are arrested. The case brief originates where a police officer arrested four motorists in the vehicle and placed them under arrest for unlicensed driving. He searched the vehicle and found a jacket belonging to Belton and on further examination found cocaine. Belton challenged the legality of the cocaine evidence, arguing that his jacket’s search was illegal. When an officer lawfully arrests a motorist, the court established a rule that he has the authority to search the vehicle’s passenger compartment.

Illinois V. Rodriguez (1990)

Police officers were invited into the premises of the respondent, Edward Rodriguez, by a woman allegedly living with the respondent. The woman gave the police consent to search the premises though she had moved out before the incident. The police conducted a warrantless search and found drug paraphernalia and charged Rodriguez with drug possession. The respondent attempted to question the legality of the evidence. He argued the woman had forfeited her authority to consent to the search as she no longer resided in the apartment. The court held that a search conducted without a warrant is valid when police had reasonable proof that a liberal third party consented to the search.

Arizona v. Gant (2008)

Rodney Gant was arrested for driving without a license and placed in a police car. After locking Gant and securing the perimeter, the officers proceeded to search his car and found a handgun and cocaine (Del Carmen and Walker, 2019). Gant was charged and convicted of drug possession. However, he challenged the legality of cocaine evidence in the trial, citing the violation of his rights as the search was conducted without a warrant. The court held that the search was unconstitutional, but the police could conduct a search without a warrant within two parameters; the arrested individual is capable of accessing the vehicle while the apartment is being searched, and there is evidence implicating the arrested person of the similar offense.

Riley v. California (2014)

Riley was arrested at a traffic stop that resulted in the discovery of firearms and was subsequently charged. He was charged based on the information such as messages, videos, and photographs the officers retrieved from his phone (Del Carmen and Walker, 2019). Riley argued that given the amount of sensitive personal information stored on the phone, the police unreasonably invaded his privacy in violation of the fourth amendment. The supreme court decision stated that the police could not search for information on the cell phone belonging to an arrested person without a warrant.

References

Del Carmen, R. V., & Walker, J. T. (2019). Briefs of leading cases in law enforcement. Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429053139