Amendment+4+(4)

In the case of Greenwood v. California in 1988, The police learned that Billy Greenwood was selling illegal drugs. An investigator, named Jenny Stracner asked the trash collector to pick up Greenwood's trash that was left on the side of the curb. Stracner looked through the trash and found evidence of drug paraphernalia. Stracner, and the police applied for a search warrant based on what they found drugs in the trash can. When officers searched the house they found cocaine and marijuana. Greenwood contacted the Supreme Court and claimed that it was illegal for the police to search through his trash bag because they did not have a warrant to look through it. However the Supreme court claimed that the bags left on the side walk were open for inspection by “animals, children, scavengers and snoops.” In conclusion, after a vote of 6-2 the court said that under the fourth amendment no search warrant was necessary to search the trash. the garbage was ruled public domain and the evidence was allowed. The court concluded that what a person exposes openly to the public cannot be protected under the fourth amendment. Therefore the Supreme court won the case.
 * 1) Greenwood v. California

Mapp v. Ohio

Seven policemen broke into Dolly Mapp’s home in 1961. Under the advice of her lawyer she refused the police officers to invade her home. The police came again and demanded to go inside, and after the second refusal they barged into her home. The search was implemented because they received a call from a person who told them that a suspect from a bombing was hiding in her house. When they broke in and searched, there was no sign of the suspect, although they found some obscene material, such as what they called "lewd" pictures and documents. Dolly was arrested and convicted for possession of the obscene material, however the Supreme Court overruled it because the police failed to show proof of a search warrant, therefore the search was illegal. This case incorporated a new law to the fourth amendment, which is called “exclusionary rule”. It prevents the use of evidence from illegal searches. In conclusion the vote was decided 6-3 in Mapp's favor. The court stated the exclusionary rule applies to the state, therefore the state could not use the evidence that they acquired from the illegal search.

**ARIZONA v. GANT** =** In this case, the Arizona police made an unwarranted search in Rodney Gant’s car, after arresting him for driving with a suspended license. After placing Gant in the back of the police car, the officers went to search his vehicle. They discovered a handgun and a plastic bag of cocaine. When they went to court, Gant asked if the judge could ignore the findings of the police since it was an unwarranted search. The judge denied Gant’s request, stating that it was a direct result of his arrest. The results ended being, 5 votes for Gant and 4 votes against him. ** = =** In conclusion, in this circumstance Gant’s Fourth Amendment right was violated. The officers had no reason to search his car. If Gant was in the back of the police car like he was, he wasn’t a threat to the cops. The officers can only search for things that are in plain sight. ** = = =

Georgia v. Randolph In this case, Janet Randolph called police to her house saying that that her husband Scott had disappeared with their child. She said that Scott had used cocaine, and told police that they could look for it in their house. Scott Randolph returned, claiming that he had left the child with a neighbor, and refused to allow the police to search their house. The police conducted the anyway and found cocaine.

In conclusion the decision had been made that police can’t search a house when a co-tenant who is present has specifically refused to allow a search.

Chimel v. California

=
A man was arrested for a burglary and the police went to his house to arrest him. His wife let them in so they could wait for the arrestee. The officers did not have a warrant. They asked his wife if they could look around for evidence and they found it. When the man came home he was arrested for the things pertaining to the case and the policemen had found extra evidence for the case. He was found guilty in the lower courts and the supreme court reversed it. =====

=
The outcome of Chimel v. California is when a person is arrested only there body and near area can be searched without a search warrant. If you don’t have a search warrant you cannot search past those parameters. ===== TLO v. New Jersey

=
A New Jersey teenager (T.L.O.) and her friend were caught smoking in a bathroom at a public school. The bathroom was a non-smoking area but there were smoking areas around the school. The friend confessed smoking right away but T.L.O. denied smoking. The principle demanded to see her bag to search through it. The principal found cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, and a list of names of students around the school that owed money to her. The lower courts said she was guilty for possession of marijuana, and the Supreme Court reversed the decision because the principal did not have a search warrant and should have never searched through the bag. =====

Predictions in the next 10 years
====I predict that in the next 10 years the fourth amendment will be even more strict than what it is currently. I think they will be more specific in what they are talking about, and make things more clear. I also believe that they will find more things to add to the list of things that can not be violated. The last thing I think they will change to the fourth amendment is that the warrants being made will have to have even more detail to "cover the laws back."==== I predict that in the next 10 years the fourth amendment be slightly stricter than what it is now. I think technology will be able to be searched but there will be a big conflict about it in the near future. In the next ten years I predict that the fourth amendment will continue to become stricter and stricter. I believe that there will be many more court cases to come, therefore, new laws pertaining to search and seizure will be discovered and created. With previous knowledge of court cases over the last hundred years, officials in the supreme court have prior knowledge of how to handle the next court cases that come into the future.

**Interview Questions**

 * 1) What does the fourth amendment mean to you? How would you describe it in your own words?
 * 2) Is there anything unreasonable about the law that you would want changed?
 * 3) Is there anything that you would add to the law to make it stricter or more disciplined?
 * 4) Have you witnessed or been to a court case about the search and seizure law?
 * 5) What was it like? Describe the case.
 * 6) Did you think the final decision was appropriate? Or do you believe there should have been more or lesser actions?
 * 7) Are you familiar with any famous cases that you think are interesting?
 * 8) Does that case pertain to, or created change to law as it is now?
 * 9) How do you think the law has evolved over the last 200 years?
 * 10) What do you think the law will be like 20 years into the future? Stricter, less disciplined.. etc.?

Fourth Amendment Timeline 1949: before this date, states did not have to abide by the fourth amendment 1961: The Exclusionary Rule is added. This means that illegal evidence that is found during a search and seizure cannot be used in trial. 1965: The right to privacy is recognized. 1967: The right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. 1968: Police can search a person without a warrant if they have a resonable suspicion that the suspect is doing something wrong. 1984: The Supreme Court sets a "Good Faith" exception to the Exclusionary Rule.