Week 4 - 3rd and 4th Amendment PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Week 4 - 3rd and 4th Amendment PDF

Description

Engblom v. Carey (3rd) ● There was a strike in New York by the correctional officers ● The National Guard was brought in to fill in for the officers on strike ○ They were to stay the home used by New York correctional officers ○ The officers were evicted ● The officers filed suit ● There was no precedent for the 3rd amendment, since no one had ever really run into an issue with it before ○ The court found that “that the protection of the Third Amendment extends beyond home owners, that is, those only with a fee simple arrangement, but includes anyone who, within their residence, has a legal expectation of privacy and a legal right to exclude others from entry into the premises” ● Fourth amendment allows for reasonable search and seizure ○ Requires probable cause to get a warrant from a judge ○ Warrant also requires the police to specify where they will be searching and what they’ll be searching for ○ A warrant is not required if someone voluntarily consents to a search or they are in “hot pursuit” (ex. Chasing someone down after seeing them commit a crime) McSurely v. McClellan (4th) ● A political activist couple moves to rural Kentucky to try and help the impoverished and organize the community ○ They had political connections throughout the country ○ The people in Kentucky didn’t like having these new people ■ Their landlord tried to kick them out so he goes up to their house and while he’s there he sees “seditious material” which was against a Kentucky statute ■ There was what he thought was communist literature ● The landlord goes to tell the authorities who get a warrant saying that they can “seize seditious matter and arrest Allen” ○ They go to the house and look through everything, arrest the wife, take boxes of books, a diary, and letters ● A grand jury indicts them on charges of sedition ○ Another court throws it out because the statute is unconstitutional ○ However, the items taken from their home are still in government possession ● A Senate subcommittee hears about the raid on their home in Kentucky ○ A guy comes to look at the items taken and see the love letters, recognizes someone in the letters as Drew Pearson, a muckraker ● The McSurelys go to get their materials back and recieves subpoenas from Congress, but they had burned the material they got back ○ Subpoena: Demands a person to appear in court under penalty of jail/fine ■ Duceste cum: Requires that the person appear with certain documents ○ They were held in contempt until a court determined the original raid did not have a right to seize their materials in the first place ■ Since “seditious” was not properly defined on the warrant and they based

the issuing of the warrant on what the landlord said, not actual direct evidence ● Exclusionary Rule: Any evidence brought in that was not seized in line with the stipulations of the fourth amendment cannot be used Safford Unified School District v Redding Florida v Jardines ● The police got an anonymous tip of someone growing marijuana in their house ○ They brought a drug-sniffing dog by, which detected marijuana ○ It was also smelled by the police officer ● They went and got a warrant, came back, and found the marijuana ● It was argued that when the dog was brought to the house, that was a search ○ Since there was no warrant, this was illegal ○ Therefore, all of the evidence found afterwards was “fruit of a poisonous tree” ● What’s the difference between this instance and seeing marijuana growing in the backyard? ○ Seeing drugs in the backyard would be “in plain sight” ○ Curtilage: an area of land attached to a house and forming one enclosure with it ■ This area is protected by the fourth amendment Maryland v King ● Alonso King was arrested for violent assault ○ He was subject to a DNA test, which he said violated his fourth amendment right ○ His DNA connected him to an unsolved rape case ● The court ruled with the state, saying it’s okay since it helps solve other crimes and it is not so invasive to require a warrant ○ A DNA test is just a valid and necessary as fingerprinting ● King said the DNA identification was unnecessary after already being processed (picture, name, personal info) ○ The cheek swab is a form of search...