Bill of rights
Introduction
In December 1791 the states agreed to the 10 amendments to the Constitution now known as the Bill of Rights. At the time these 10 amendments were only applied to white males. Slaves, free black men, and women were excluded from these 10 amendments. The purpose of this document was to defend the citizens because the anti-federalist wanted to make sure that the central government wasn’t too powerful.
The 4th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing …show more content…
Leon (1984) it occurred in Burbank California. The police had a warrant sent out to search a facility where they thought there was drug activity. The warrant was issued by a state court judge. Since the warrant wasn't issued correctly the evidence that was found and seized wasn't able to be used in a court of law. The government appealed it because they felt that the officers had gone in good faith thinking that the warrant they had was valid. They appealed so that they could still use the evidence under the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule. This means that if a cop goes to search a private property under the impression that the warrant is valid but turns out to be invalid the evidence will still be used in a court of law because they were not trying to take advantage of their power.
In another case New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) a student was searched by the school vice principal and she was found having cigarettes and marijuana. She was searched because they had evidence that she had smoked in school in the past and also that she sold marijuana. She tried to fight back by suing the school in court but the court decided that the school could legally search her because they have the right to keep and have a healthy school environment. As long as they have a reasonable suspicion they have the right to search therefore nobody’s rights were violated and she lost the …show more content…
In the article “Can Your Phone Testify Against You” in the New York Times UPFRONT written by Patricia Smith she states that “Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the ruling will make things harder for police. Cell phones can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals he wrote but, he emphasized, privacy comes with a cost.” An example of how this can be useful is when a person wants to rob a bank or bomb a place. They might have some information that can help law enforcement stop them from committing the crime or can help catch them if they do commit the crime. Important information like where to meet up, where they are going to buy supplies, what day it’s going to happen and why they are doing it is all the information that they say should not be considered private and can be used to stop future crimes. It doesn’t matter that a lot of people want their privacy, no matter what when public safety is endangered or involved it’s important they can
Introduction
In December 1791 the states agreed to the 10 amendments to the Constitution now known as the Bill of Rights. At the time these 10 amendments were only applied to white males. Slaves, free black men, and women were excluded from these 10 amendments. The purpose of this document was to defend the citizens because the anti-federalist wanted to make sure that the central government wasn’t too powerful.
The 4th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing …show more content…
Leon (1984) it occurred in Burbank California. The police had a warrant sent out to search a facility where they thought there was drug activity. The warrant was issued by a state court judge. Since the warrant wasn't issued correctly the evidence that was found and seized wasn't able to be used in a court of law. The government appealed it because they felt that the officers had gone in good faith thinking that the warrant they had was valid. They appealed so that they could still use the evidence under the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule. This means that if a cop goes to search a private property under the impression that the warrant is valid but turns out to be invalid the evidence will still be used in a court of law because they were not trying to take advantage of their power.
In another case New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) a student was searched by the school vice principal and she was found having cigarettes and marijuana. She was searched because they had evidence that she had smoked in school in the past and also that she sold marijuana. She tried to fight back by suing the school in court but the court decided that the school could legally search her because they have the right to keep and have a healthy school environment. As long as they have a reasonable suspicion they have the right to search therefore nobody’s rights were violated and she lost the …show more content…
In the article “Can Your Phone Testify Against You” in the New York Times UPFRONT written by Patricia Smith she states that “Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the ruling will make things harder for police. Cell phones can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals he wrote but, he emphasized, privacy comes with a cost.” An example of how this can be useful is when a person wants to rob a bank or bomb a place. They might have some information that can help law enforcement stop them from committing the crime or can help catch them if they do commit the crime. Important information like where to meet up, where they are going to buy supplies, what day it’s going to happen and why they are doing it is all the information that they say should not be considered private and can be used to stop future crimes. It doesn’t matter that a lot of people want their privacy, no matter what when public safety is endangered or involved it’s important they can