Fourth Amendment
Arizona v. Gant- A Strengthening of the Fourth Amendment
The law enforcement officers are taken aback on a decision by the Supreme Court decision regarding a vehicle search to arrest a suspect. In the Gant case, the Supreme Court uphold the search of Rodney Gant's vehicle, which took place after Mr. Gant, who was arrested for driving on a suspended license, was handcuffed and held in the back of a police vehicle. Gant's vehicle was subsequently searched and the Police found a bag of cocaine and a gun.
Prior to Gant, the Supreme Court had extended the above mentioned search occasion to an arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment, pursuant to the holdings in many important decisions. The holdings of Chimel and Belton was an example. Under Chimel, police may carry out a search incident to an arrest for the space within an arrestee's immediate control, which the Court gave verdict as "the area within which he might gain control of a weapon or destructible evidence." 395 U.S., at 763. The rule set forth in Chimel was later applied to vehicle searches in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), and subsequently addressed in Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004).
Over the time of the last twenty-eight years, as Belton was decided, many Court's have broadened the application of Belton, which has led many law enforcement officers to believe that a search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to an otherwise valid arrest is essentially always permissible. The Clarification which was needed was provided by the decision in Gant. The Gant decision stands for the proposition that a search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle culminating to an arrest is only valid if- (1) an arrestee is within reaching space of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or (2) it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. However, if these justifications are absent, a search of an "arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies". Id.
The Gant decision is fairly recent, and as of now, it's unclear what result this decision will have on criminal defense attorney's, defendants, or the law enforcement community. The decision may depress many criminal lawyers as defence attorney. At this point, it is still too early to tell what impact, if any, the Gant decision might have on crime statistics, or officer safety; however, the Supreme Court obviously documented the importance in revisiting this issue, and has given some much needed direction for officers conducting warrantless vehicle searches leading to an arrest.
Need a Las Vegas Lawyer or Las Vegas Attorney?
I'm doing a persuasive speech on why the patriot act should be abolished?
I needed three reasons why I believe so. I said because it invades the privacy of law abiding citizens, the government takes advantage or it, and it undermines the fourth amendment . Do you think these are pretty legit reasons to why it should be abolished ? Thanks and I don't need your opinion if you believe it shouldn't be abolished.
Get the answers...
How to cite the bill of rights?
I am doing a paper on unethical decisions and I use the eight and fourth amendments. How do I cite that I was trying to use easy bib, but I just wasn't sure? I have to use APA, I have to make a bibliography and in text citation. I really have no idea. Has anyone had to do this in the past and can tell me how??
My main issue is I am not sure what type of document it is. My friend says to use us document, but I don't see that option. I grew up using easybib and other type of generators, so I am not sure how to cite something that doesn't fall into the basics, book, website, journal etc....
Get the answers...
Is the United States in Danger of becoming an Orwellian nightmare?
Justice Breyer warns of Orwellian government
A Supreme Court justice on Tuesday expressed major concerns that the government would engage in round-the-clock surveillance reminiscent of the totalitarian world of the George Orwell novel 1984 if the court ruled in the government's favor.
The court heard oral arguments in the Jones case, in which the outcome will determine whether warrantless GPS tracking by law enforcement is an invasion of Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Justice Stephen Breyer questioned what a democratic society would look like if people believed the government was tracking them for days at a time.
"If you win this case, then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States,? Breyer said. ?So if you win, you suddenly produce what sounds like 1984 from their brief."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/192445-justice-breyer-warns-of-orwellian-government
Get the answers...
US Constitution 4th Amendment is Dead in America
Next page: Toyota Car Warranty
Bookmark/Share This Page:
|
|
|
|
