instructionsthe 4th amendment protects reasonable expectations B u s i n e s s F i n a n c e
There are 3 parts to this assignment each part needs a small
paragraph discussing about each assignment.)
ContainersCJ 5 D
United States v. Ross (1982) is one of the top five cases in vehicle stops,
searches, and inventories. In this case, the Supreme Court was tasked with
determining whether a legal warrantless search of an automobile allowed police
to also search closed containers, specifically within the trunk of that
vehicle. The Court ruled that the warrantless search of the containers found
during the search of the care was constitutional and fell within the existing
precedent of warrantless searches called the “automobile exception.”
Locate another case on point associated
with vehicle stops and searches. In your main post, address the following:
·Summarize the material facts of the case
·Explain the applicable law the court
relied on in reaching its decision in your selected case.
·Describe the legal requirements from your
selected case that hold particular importance for police officers conducting a
vehicle stop and search.
·Examine the potential impact of your
selected case on the ethical behavior of police officers carrying out their
States v. Ross,
(80-2209) 456 US 798 (1982).
and Seizure in Open FieldsCJ 6 D
In Oliver v. United States (1984),
the U.S. Supreme Court held that Oliver did not have a reasonable expectation
of privacy in his open fields even though he put up a gate and a no
trespassing sign. Entry onto such fields was not covered by the 4th
Amendment. There was precedent for open fields not having 4th Amendment
protection because such fields were not specifically mentioned in the 4th
Amendment (along with persons, houses, et cetera). Neither
businesses nor open fields are mentioned in the 4th Amendment, but a place of
business that is not open to the public is protected.
The 4th Amendment protects reasonable
expectations of privacy even though such expectations are not mentioned in the
language of the Amendment. For this discussion, choose and examine a precedential
case that addresses open fields (other than Oliver).
whether, based on the case you selected, posting a no trespassing sign
creates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Include your rationale for your
how your case selection relates to whether open fields are protected from
search and seizure.
between the constitutional requirements for protected searches and unprotected
searches as they relate to the duties of a criminal justice professional.
Imaging Device SearchesCJ 6 D
In Kyllo v. United States (2001),
the U.S. Supreme Court held that use of a technological device to explore the
details of a home that would previously have been unknown without physical
intrusion is a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. The
federal prosecutor argued that thermal imaging does not constitute a search
because (1) “it detects only heat radiating from the external surface of
the house” and therefore there was no entry, and (2) it did not detect
private activities occurring in private areas because “everything that was
detected was on the outside.”
Court has ruled that plain view, plain odor, and plain touch are all
constitutional. In Kyllo v. United States, the Court ruled the use of a
thermal imaging device on a home was presumptively unreasonable without a
your main post:
whether or not, as a criminal justice practitioner, you agree with the Court in
Kyllo, and why. Include your rationale.
whether heat radiating from a private home should be protected using an
additional related case as support for your position.
the plain view, plain odor, and plain touch doctrines from the thermal imaging
device in Kyllo with respect to search requirements.
whether you believe the results of the Kyllo case has had a positive or
negative impact for law enforcement.
Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount