Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
Directions: Read the discussion post 1 and 2 and reply with two paragraph each.
Adhere to the following guidelines listed below. Use APA format for reference and include page numbers when citing information.
Discussion Post 1
1. The fourteenth amendment of 1868 to the United States Constitution granted citizenship as well as equal civil and legal rights to emancipated African American slaves. The amendment was done after the American Civil War, and it included African Americans who were either born in the United States or naturalized there. The United States Supreme Court declared that evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that bars unreasonable searches as well as seizures, is inadmissible in state courts. In doing so, it held that the federal exclusionary rule prohibited the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in federal courts (Duignan, 2019). The proof also applies to jurisdictions underneath the commerce clause, which holds that the majority of governmental Bill of Rights safeguards are assured against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment’s free exercise clause, which precludes states from trying to deny life, freedom, or possessions without due process of the law. I don’t think the individual rights of Mapp should be weighed more importantly if the police suspicion were beyond a reasonable doubt. Upholding individual rights or the protection of society means Mapp to continue carrying out his own immoral activities.
2. The arrest done in an emergency situation is lawful (Barrett & Attorney, n.d.). Although the Fourth Amendment provides that “no warrants shall issue except upon reasonable cause,” it does not define “probable cause.” Even if the arrest is made according to an arrest warrant, the Fourth Amendment mandates that the arrest be based on reasonable cause. Whether or whether there is probable cause is usually determined by the totality of the circumstances, which includes everything the arresting police know or reasonably believe at the time of the arrest.
3. Joe’s garbage examination was legal, and indeed the police did not require a search warrant given that he possessed no substantial expectation of confidentiality in his rubbish. As a result, the Fourth Amendment does not preclude law police from conducting a warrantless search and seizure of his waste (Fourth Amendment, n.d.).
Discussion Post 2
* The constitutional amendment that is in contention here is the fourth amendment. This amendment refers to the right of individuals to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement agencies (Lazar, 2019, p.212). The fourth amendment envisioned that a search warrant issued against an individual should have specific information on where to be searched and the things the law enforcement agencies should seize. All this should only be done if there is probable cause. Therefore, the fourth amendment looks at the right to privacy and freedom from intrusion by law enforcement and other government agencies.
* The ruling of the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio was that the fourth amendment, which stressed the protection of people against unreasonable seizures and searches (Tibbs, 2019, p.6), applicable to all states and that any evidence obtained unconstitutionally could not be applied in the court. This was because the police had obtained evidence unlawfully from Mapp’s apartment as they had a fake warrant to look for explosives, but instead, they stumbled upon pornographic materials. Even though pornographic material was illegal at the time, the police had no probable cause to look for them, and they did not have a warrant to help in the search. Thus, the court ruled that the evidence obtained was unlawful, meaning it could not be used to prosecute Mapp.
* Mapp had the right to privacy. It is clear the police infringed on her right to privacy, thus violating the fourth amendment (Tibbs, 2019, p.7). However, in searching her house, which was illegal, the police came upon obscene materials that were against the norms and values of society at the time. From a utilitarian point of view, I would say that the needs of society are far more important than those of an individual. Therefore, I would argue that the rights of society to be protected from the harmful effects the pornographic materials superseded the right to privacy and protection, as was the case with Mapp. Hence, the protection of society should have weighed more in the case.
Sally’s arrest was legal because she participated in intoxicating minors by serving them alcoholic beverages. The police, under this circumstance, did not require a warrant to make an arrest because there was probable cause which led them to believe that Sally had engaged minors in the indulgence of alcohol. The fourth amendment requires officers not to make an arrest without probable cause for a crime being committed in a public place or in a home (Sullivan, 2019, p.106). Officers are required to have a warrant for search and seizure; however, in this case, they were reacting to a noise complaint by Sally’s neighbors, and in the process, they realized that the teenagers were intoxicated. Thus, they had probable cause for the arrest, which means that they did not require a warrant
The search of Joe’s garage came after the police studied the movement in and out of the garage, as well as the evidence that there was drug trafficking taking place. However, the evidence obtained, which was used to get the warrant, was unconstitutional because it violated his rights to privacy and freedom. The police did not have to acquire the evidence unlawfully; instead, they could have acquired a warrant to search the property, given that there was suspicious activity in the house. Hence, in my opinion, the police needed a warrant to search Joe’s garage so that the evidence obtained could become binding to the case.