Search and Seizure

1
Search and Seizure

• By
• Bryan
• Travis
• Timothy Joe
• Holly

2
Fourth Amendment Text

• 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 of affirmation,
  and particularly describing the place to be
  searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

3
Problem

• The problem in what the framers wrote is the
  word unreasonable used to describe the searches
  and seizures that are declared as illegal by the
  Fourth Amendment. Today people believe that what
  the framers considered unreasonable and what we
  today consider as unreasonable are different
  things. Another problem is that the Fourth
  Amendment writers did not know of the technology
  that exists today such as phones, computers, and
  thermal imaging.

4
Courts

• It is the courts job to decide what is
  unreasonable on a case-by-case basis.

5
Cases Wolf vs. Colorado 1949

• The Supreme Court heard a Fourth Amendment case
  regarding the admissibility of material that had
  been unlawfully seized by Colorado police in a
  1949 state criminal proceeding. In this case the
  justices determined that if a state court was
  trying a defendant accused of violating a state
  law, evidence obtained by an unreasonable search
  and seizure might be used. The decision created
  a major rift in legal procedure governing how
  criminal cases at the state and federal level
  were tried.

6
Cases Mapp vs. Ohio 1961

• The case prompted a reexamination of the courts
  Wolf decision 12 years earlier. In the Mapp case,
  police claiming to be carrying a warrant broke
  into Mapps house after being refused entrance.
  The officers, conducting a search for a suspect
  involved in a recent bombing, thoroughly examined
  the house and instead found lewd and
  lascivious(obscene) books and photographs in the
  basement. Mapp was promptly arrested for
  possession of obscene material, a violation of
  Ohio laws.

7
Mapp vs. Ohio 1961

• Though the police were unable to produce their
  search warrant is state court, Mapp was found
  guilty of the obscenity charge and sentenced. In
  her appeal to the Supreme Court, she argued that
  the confiscated material was part of an illegal
  search and therefore should be inadmissible
  evidence by virtue of the exclusionary rule. In
  a complete reversal of its 1949 Wolf decision,
  the court agreed with Mapp by declaring that the
  exclusionary rule was applicable in state courts,
  just as it was in federal courts. Ruling for the
  majority, Justice Tom Clark upheld the Fourth
  Amendment, stating, We hold that all evidence in
  violation of the Constitution is, by that same
  authority, inadmissible in court.

8
Conclusion

• Search and Seizure can only be interpreted by
  courts on a case-by-case basis as to whether or
  not material seized in a search is unreasonable,
  illegal, or able to be used in a court case.