DOC PREVIEW
UA CJ 100 - Fourth Amendment
Type Lecture Note
Pages 3

This preview shows page 1 out of 3 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

CJ 100 1st Edition Lecture 8Outline of Current Lecture II. Fourth AmendmentIII. WarentsIV. Weeks vs. USV. Mapp vs OhioVI. Katz vs USVII. California vs. GreenwoodVIII. Domestic Drones Current LectureFourth Amendment- Remember: - Protection against unreasonable search and seizures- Probable cause - No general warrants (need specifics) When warrants are NOT required-- Consent- Plain view doctrine- this includes areas visible from the air- Plain feel and plain smell doctrine- police dogs who sniff luggage in public places are not conducting searches (so you are not subject to 4th amendment protections)Weeks v. United States (1914)- Exclusionary rule is created (1914)- can’t use evidence from illegal search and seizure- Huge check on police power- Only applied to federal casesMapp v. Ohio (1961)These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.- Extended the exclusionary rule to the states (via the due process clause in the 14th amendment)- Don King Katz v. United States (1967)- Key issues:o “right to privacy”- does it extend outside the home? (ex. telephone booths, public places)o Do you need physical intrusion to constitute a search? (ex. Wire tapping)- Ruling- private conversations can be made in public places. Wire tapping violated privacyand therefore constituted a search and seizure unreasonable- need a warrant- If door is closed in a phone booth then privacy is expected - Think about the evolution of technology (cell phones)- Katz- What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of 4th amendment protectionCalifornia v. Greenwood (1988)- 4th amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home- No reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on the side of the street o Also social media, anything you put out for the publicKyllo v. United States (2001)- Use of thermal imaging technology to see through walls- The use of thermal imaging technology constituted a search- did not fall under the “plainview doctrine” - Also deals with advanced technology Domestic Drones and the 4 th amendment (government technology is always about 20 years ahead of current technology) - NSA- large domestic surveillance program- listening to people- leading up to a big supreme court case in the future- Goes against the 4th amendmentK-9 Searches- Sniff by a police dog is NOT a search under the 4th amendment (US v. Place 1983) - Positive alerts by K-9 units are treated as a probable causeFlorida v. Jardines (2013)- Is a K-9 unit sniff outside of the house a 4th amendment “search”?? o A “search” requires both probable cause and a search


View Full Document
Download Fourth Amendment
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Fourth Amendment and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Fourth Amendment 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?