Search+and+Seizure

1) Describe the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and explain its impact on search and seizure rules.
The 4th amendment states, “prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures.” This means that if a search and seizure is to occur, there must be either reasonable suspicion, or probable cause. Without those, it is illegal to perform a search or seizure.

2) Explain what "probable cause" is for Law Enforcement. Distinguish it from "reasonable suspicion". When is probable cause needed?
Probable cause is defined as “in search warrant cases, a set of facts and circumstances that leads to the reasonable belief that the items sought are located in a particular place. In arrest cases, the facts and circumstances lead to the reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a crime. Reasonable suspicion just means that there is enough circumstantial evidence to assume that a person is guilty of something. It's a hunch. You don’t think that you have the cause for what happened, you just know that the person did something criminal. Probable cause is needed to get a warrant. It is also required in any arrest, search, and seizure that is permitted without a warrant.

**For the listed cases, do the following:**

Illinois vs. Gate
Police received an anonymous letter outlining plans for a married couple to move large amounts of illegal drugs. The officers investigated the claims and found oodles of evidence supporting the claims in the letter. They obtained a warrant from a judge and upon searching the home of the couple discovered oodles of drugs.

The couple moved to have that evidence suppressed on the basis that anonymous tips are not enough for probable cause and was successful in the lower court and the Illinois Supreme Court upheld their decision. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. They stated that probable cause is a fluid concept based on probabilities, not certainties.

This Supreme Court decision established rules that must be followed when police secure information from known informants. There must be underlying causes that would lead a reasonable person to believe the source was credible and reliable and the conclusions of the informant must be based on reasonable circumstances as well.

**Florida vs. J.L.**

Police in Miami received an anonymous call claiming that there was a male at a bus stop wearing a plaid shirt with a gun. Police went to the bus stop, saw three males standing there. One of whom was wearing a plaid shirt. The three were not disrupting or harming anyone. There was no reason, other than the tip, to assume that one was carrying a gun. The police frisked all of them and did find a gun on the male in the plaid shirt, whom they charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon.

After many different lower court decisions regarding the admissibility of the gun, the Supreme Court heard the case and determined that the police did not have probable cause to believe the young man was carrying a gun, therefore the police search was unreasonable and a violation of the 4th amendment.

This Supreme Court decision called into question the reliability of anonymous tips in securing probable cause. Basically, the anonymous tip is enough to launch a formal investigation but not enough for probable cause. In order for probable cause to be proven, the officers must have other evidence supporting their claim.

A) In Ohio, Detective Mcfadden noticed three men walking around the streets looking through different store windows. It seemed very unusual and the two men looked a little suspicious. Mcfadden went up to the men and frisked them, finding that two out of the three men were carrying guns with them.

B) The issue that is being challenged is that law enforcement should not detain a person without any evidence to make an arrest. By detaining someone, you are seizing them.

C) The court’s decision was that if an officer frisks someone and feels that they have a weapon of any sort, that they may seize the person without a warrant.

D) It kept things the same because officers may search someone if they look suspicious but do not have a warrant.

United States v Grubbs
A) A man name Jeffrey Grubbs purchasaed a child pronography videotape from a website and was operated by an undercover postal inspector. The videotape would arrive at Grubb’s house but no warrant would be given until the package had been delivered and taken into the home. Federal agents secured the warrant. The warrant consisted of what the police expected to find along the way. The package arrived at the house and Grubb’s wife signed it off and took it into the home. Grubb’s was then later detained and was given the search warrant but not the affidavit. He admitted that he had the tape. Brought into court, he suppressed the videotape because the search warrant did not give him the affidavit stating the triggering events. This was denied, thus making Grubbs entering a guilty plea but reserved his right to appeal.

B) The Supreme Court confronted the issue whether Anticipatory search warrants were constitutional and whether or not they violate the requirement that warrants must be issued only upon probable cause. Also if it was defective because it did not contain the affidavit with the triggering information.

C) The court decided to reject the position because it was held that it was not defective because in the Fourth Amendment it states that, “it does not require that the triggering condition for any anticipatory search warrant be set forth in the warrant itself.”

D) It changed because it made the Anticipatory search not require the triggering information to be in the warrant itself.