amendment4

1. Mandie Nick 2. Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania (1958) 3. This amendment was challenged because a police officer pulled a car over because it was riding low so without a warrant the officer searched the suspects car and found untaxted liquor. 4. The suspect was let go because in the 4th amendment it clearly states protection against unreasonable searches and seizures so the officer went against the 4th amendment. 5. This means that officers need to be more careful of what they are doing and follow their guidlines.

1 shane kaminski 2 Wilson v. Layne 1999 3 While executing an arrest warrant in a private home, police officers invited representatives of the media to accompany them. We hold that such a “media ride along” does violate the [|Fourth Amendment], but that because the state of the law was not clearly established at the time the search in this case took place, the officers are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. 4 the Court held that the presence of media during the execution of an arrest warrant in a home was in no way related to the officers' task at hand. Reporters neither assist officers nor do they have anything to do with the warrant's execution. Moreover, the connection between their presence and furthering positive publicity for law enforcement is unclear at best. The Court added, however, that in this case the officers had no reason to believe that permitting media to accompany them would be illegal, since no prior rule existed in this matter. Accordingly, the officers in question were granted qualified immunity. 5 it means that reporters are not allowed to assist police officers.

1. Derek Walsh 2. United States v.s Verdugo-Urquidez(Nov. 7 1989). 3. The reason why the amendment was challenged was becuase a non u.s resident was being searched for drugs and evidence that would cause him to be arrested, and sent back to the U.S to stand trial without a search warrent. 4. The decision in the case was that the accused was found inocent of all charges. 5. The desicion ment that the non resident was found inocent.This desicion impacted the world by stateing that all people can't be searched without a search warrent.__**
 * __Derek Walsh is doing United States v.s Verdugo-Urquidez (nov. 7 1989).

1. Kristin Stetzel 2. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte(1973) 3. Bustamonte was pulled over in CA because of a burned out headlight. The police asked if they could search the car and he said that they could. When they searched the car, they found that he had stolen checks in the car. They arrested him for fraud. 4. The issue was whether the police had to inform Bustamonte that he had the right to refuse the search, under the Fourth Amendment ,of his car. 5. The Supreme Court decided that the police do not have to inform people of their right to refuse the search.

1. Jack Velella 2.Terry v. Ohio (1991) 3. The man (Terry) was standing in front of a jewlery store pacing and a officer thought he was stealing. The man claims he had nothing to do with the other men that were steeling. Then they went to court. 4. The decision was that Terry did try an rob the bank because they brought in the other men that were stealing and they said he was trying to help them steal. That help the case alot. 5. This shows that a police officer can find something supspicious and search it. with out being unreasonable.
 * __Jack Velella Is doing Terr v. Ohio

stevn penna is doing__** //Kyllo v. US// police force of the us had a strang suspicoin that kilo was taking part in illeagal activity. The police fordce used a thermal imagine device which was not strong enoght to dectect human acttivy but strong enogh a large area of heat gennerating from his basement. The police force arrested killo shortly after they realised he was illegally growing majawana. Killo was broght to the supream court was he told the judge that his 4th amendment was volated when he was arrested without a warrent. The jugde realised this was agants the forth amendment. The police force explaned their case of the story but the judge realised killos fourth amendment was voliated. The judge reverceid his sentence due to that fact that his amentment(s) were violated.

2.Zurcher vs.stanford Daily__ 1978** 3.a student newspaper that had published articles and photographs of a clash between demonstrators and police at a hospital, and staff members, brought this action under against, among others, petitioners, law enforcement and district attorney personnel, claiming that a search pursuant to a warrant issued on a judge's finding of probable cause that the newspaper (which was not involved in the unlawful acts) possessed photographs and negatives revealing the identities of demonstrators who had assaulted police officers at the hospital had deprived respondents of their constitutional rights. 4.The District Court granted declaratory relief, holding that the Fourth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth forbade the issuance of a warrant to search for materials in possession of one not suspected of crime unless there is probable cause, based on facts presented in a sworn affidavit, to believe that a subpoena //duces tecum// would be impracticable. 2. Chimel v California 3. Police searched a mans apartment without a warrant 4. The officers were found not guilty because they found a gun and the court ruled that that fell underneath the officers “immediate control.” 5. A gun in the immediate vicinity of an arrestee is as dangerous as a concealed one and to assure that he didn’t escape it was necessary to search his house**.
 * __1.Ryan Altieri
 * 1. Matt Drozd

1. Mariel Householder 2. Virginia v. Moore 2003 3. Driving While Intoxicated- Violated State Law. 4. Moore was arrested 5. This case could affect many state laws concerning civil liberties and the way in which police think about illegal arrests.


 * __s__hane k.** __is doing **//Wilson v. Layne

1. Lindsay Muhs 2.//**__**//Benton vs. Maryland, 1969 3.this case was challenged because Benton was found not guilty but then someone challenged it to a retrial. 4. He was found not guilty, because they said you found him innocent before so you will probably find him not guilty again. 5. The impact on the country is that you cant retry a case.//**

[|Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania]- Mandie Nick

2.Weeks vs. U.S 1914 3.A police and Deputy Marshall did a warantless search to a mans home and found lottery tickets in his mail. Before the trial he asked for his items back, and during the trial he said it may not be used as evidence. 4.The man "Weeks", was prosecuted for the illegal transport of gambling items. Since he objected the items available to use as evidence the court decided that if they cant use that than his right to be secure against searches is nothing and should be taken or removed from the constitution. 5.This affected the country because now if documents and letters cant be seized and used as evidence than that person has no right to be secure against searches, and that right might as well be removed from the constitution.__**
 * __1.Casey Bowlby

Rani Hamade Mapp vs Ohio (1961) Many police officers entered Miss Mapps home ,believing she was letting a fugative stay in her home, with a search warrant believed to be fake. Miss Mapp called her attorney and the officers surrounding her house would not let him enter. They re-tried her without the evidence obtained by the search. By applying the federal exclusionary rule to all the states, all citizens would be equally protected. While a controversial decision at the time, the creation of the exclusionary rule is now one of the backbones of the accused rights in American society.

1. Chris West 2. Delaware vs. Prouse, 1979 3. This court case was about when police officers would stop a car in the middle of nothing and search the car. This violates amendment 4 of being against unreasonble searches and seizurs. 4. The decission of the case was that motor vehicales could not be pulled over for an unreasonable search or seizures 5. The impact this had on our country is that now if you getpulled over for an unreasonable search the cop can get in a lot of trouble and you could win the trail against it very fast.

//**__Rachel Sanford- oliver vs. united states

Tyler M. is doing Kyllo v.s. U.S.__**//

Tyler M. Kyllo v.s. U.S. [2001] Suspicious of Marajuana being grown in Kyllos house.Under what circumstances must officers obtain a warrant to utilize surveillance technology that “looks” inside homes? Kyllos was proved guilty after officials found Marajuana growing in his house. This affected the country because it shows how police cant look in a house in any way and even if they find something wrong they still cant bring that person to get punished.

1. David Manno 2. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 3. Did the Missouri laws infringe upon a women's right to privacy and an abortion. 4. In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court upheld Missouri's significant restrictions on abortion and ruled that prohibiting the use of public funds to support abortions does not deny an individual the right to an abortion. 5. This affected the country because women could have an abortion now.

1:Devin Hogan 2:Terry vs. Ohio 3:the defendent was seen on a street corner looking in a store window so a police officer checked him for a weapon and he had one. 4:The Supreme court ruled in an 8-1 decision that it was a reasonable search 5:Officers can now search for weapons based on suspicious behavior

1. Billy Bliss 2. Samson vs. California 2006 3. A prisoner was about to be released from prison when a guard found methamphetamine with the prisoner. This was challenged because the guard did not have a warrant to search the prisoner. 4. The guard was allowed to search the prisoner because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing. 5. This meant that the prisoner was put back into prison for carrying methamphetamine with him. There is a law in California that says a police officer or guard can search a person if infact they have a good enough reason.

1. Mark Donahue 2. Olmstead v. U.S. 1928 3. Government officers tapped into telephone lines on night and heard of a conspiracy going on. This was considered a seach or seizure which also forbids hearing or seeing something going on. 4. They had not concidered that wire tapping was in violation of the amendment, so olmstead was sent to prison for four years. 5. Wire tapping would not be violating the amendment. It shows that a crime is more powerful than a persons rights.

1. Eryk Banatt 2. United States v. Ross (1982) 3. The police force got a tip that Ross had kept and was selling drugs in his car. The Force acted by searching the car without a warrant and finding a brown paper bag with heroin. 4. The policemen had the right to search the car with no warrant, but they needed a warrant to open the paper bag, and doing so with out a warrant was what provoked the court to rule in his favor. 5. This decision means that if they have reason to search your car, they can, but they can't open any backpacks, bags, boxes, etc. without obtaining a warrant.

In this case the law polce entered Jarad chilson's home without a warrent. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the 15th of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights generally prohibit the warrantless entry of a someones home. The prohibition does not apply, to situations in which voluntary consent has been obtained, either from the individual whose property is searched, or from a third party who possesses, or who reasonably appears to possess, common authority over the premises. The State of kansas bears the burden to demonstrate that a challenged search or seizure was lawful. 1.Jack Cubberly 2.The State of Kansas Vs. Chilson (2004) 3.The state of kansas prohibits the warrantless entry of a persons home with out that persons consent. 4.THe final disison was that Jared L. Chilson won the case and the officer who entered his house was suspened. 5.THe final inpact was that police officers will think twice about getting a warrent GO GIANTS!

1.Graham Jensen 2. State of New Jersey vs. SJ carty 2002 3. it was challenged cause police were stopping and searching cars for a random search which goes against you fourth amendment rights. 4. The judges decided that you can't just search cars without a document that the owners of the cars have to sign. 5. Impact on country will be that people will still have to be scared a little but they have to give their consent to search the car.

1.Brad Pettigrew 2.Weeks v. United States 1914 3.Weeks was convicted of sending lottery tickets through the mail. He was not satisfied with the decision because they had taken some of his personal items for evidence without a search warrant. 4.The court made a unanimous decision to reverse to lower court's judgement. 5.The decision meant that courts could not use evidence taken without a warrant. This clearly defined the 4th amendment for the entire country.

Colleen is doing California vs. Greenwood Ryan Odom is doin John r sand and gravil co v us 1 Jake Werkmeister 2TLO vs New Jersey 3 Two girls were found smoking in the girls restroom and was sent to the principle's office. The principle asked if they were both smoking one said yes but TLO denied it. Then the principle took TLO's purse and searched it. He found a small amount of marijuana a lot of $1 dollar bills and many index cards with people that owed here money. The principle called the police and she went to court. 4 The courts decision was 6-3 in favor of the principle as he had the right to search and seizure. 5 I agree with the courts decision she was in school property and she was breaking a law.

1.David C. 2.Florida vs. Bostik (1991) 3.The Amendment was challenged because Bostik was searched on a bus doing nothing wrong without a warrant. 4.The judge decided that the officer never said Bostik could not leave. The search was held valid. 5.The result was that if the officer does not say you must stay there, you may just leave (provided the officer does not have a warrant).

1.Kevin Schoenfeld 2.Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 1973 3.A police officer stopped a car and asked the driver if he could search the vehicle. In the back seat he found three checks which had been stolen from a car wash. Defendant Robert Bustamonte challenged his arrest, arguing that while he had consented voluntarily, he had not been informed of his right not to consent to the search. It was determined that the officer did not pressure the driver into consenting. 4.Bustamante lost the case because the Supreme Court ruled that consent is valid as long as it is voluntarily given. The ruling held that while the police may not use "threats or coercion" to obtain consent for a search, the police do not need to inform suspects of their right not to consent to a search. In reaching this decision, the Court rejected the stricter "waiver test," which held that suspects must be fully informed of their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures before they can give valid consent. 5.As demonstrated by the Court in the Schneckloth ruling, the police are under no obligation to inform citizens of their Fourth Amendment rights when requesting to perform a search. This means it is up to the individual to understand their rights to say no to a request to be searched.

sam bird is doing **mapp v. ohio**

Kayla Weinstein is doing //**Weeks v. United States**// (1914) 1. Kayla Weinstein 2. Weeks v. United States (1914) 3. Fremont Weeks was suspected of uding the U.S. postal system to distribute chances of winning the lottery. This was considered gambling, which was illageal in the state of Missouri. Policemen entered his house and searched and took papers that belonded to Weeks. Later that same day the police reentered the house and seized more papers and envelopes from Weeks drawers. Both times the police entered the house and took belongings, they did not have as earch warrant. 4. The case was decided that Weeks was found guilty illeagal gambling and was sent to prison for commiting a federal crime. A lawyer argued his case not saying that Weeks was not guilty but upon that police entered Weeks and home and seized belonging without a search warrant. Because Mr. Weeks was in possession of evidence which betrayed his guilt, his transgression would be punished in a court of law. 5. The impact on the country was not great but it should show people that even you are proven or found guilty of a crime, you can find a way to counter it if you have been a victim of unreasonable search and seizure.

1. Elizabeth Frye 2.United States vs. Matlock 3. This event was brought to trial beacuse of the argument of whether Maltlock's right of unusual search and seizure regarding the 4th amendment where violated when he was arrested in his own front yard. He was convicted of a bank robbery. and thought the numerous amount of money inside is house would be good for evidence. 4. The lower courts decision says agrees with Matlock and the officers should not have entered his home. The appeals court confirmed. 5. The decesion basically says the the officers should not have searched Matlock's home. I think this has no impact on counrty becease it did affect many other people then the people who were a part of this case.

Matt Drozd is doing Chimel vs. California

Eric Smuda is doing Georgia vs. Randolph (2006) 1. Eric Smuda 2. Georgia vs. Randolph (2006) 3. The amendment was challenged because Randolphs wife let the police search the house without a search warrant while Mr. Randolph was not at home. When he arrived back home, the police left and got a search warrant in order to charge him for drug possession. Mr. Randolph challanged it because they did not have a warrant when they found the evidence. 4. The decision in this case has not yet been decided. 5. The impact that this case had on our Country is that it has raised more questions regarding police searching without the proper search warrants.

1. Austin Giardullo 2. Katz vs. U.S. (1967) 3. Charles Katz was convicted of illegal gambling in California. He used a public pay phone to place bets in Miami and Boston. While Katz was talking he did not know that the FBI wiretapped the phone so they could get evidence against him. He challenged his conviction and said that the wiretap couldn't be used against him because it went against the 4th amendment. 4. The court sided with Katz saying that the 4th amendment protects his right to privacy wherever he may be. 5. This case made it so that the 4th amendment didn't just protect buildings but people too. It also extended the 4th amendment so that it protects private conversations along with corporal objects.

1. Claire Romine 2. Illinois v. Caballes (2005) 3. In Illinois v. Caballes, Caballes was stopped for speeding and while the 1st officer was asking questions another one came to the scene with a dog and sniffed the car. The dog smelt marijuana in his car and the police arrested him. 4. The decision was that they arrested him for having marijuana in his car when it is illegal 5. This impacted the country because it violated the 4th amendment of unreasonable searches and seizures. While he was just speeding his car got searched for no reason, but by finding marijuana they sent him to jail because marijuana is illegal in the U.S.

1. Kristin Hart 2. Knowles vs. Iowa (1998) 3. Does issuing a citation for speeding authorize an officer to full search of a car? 4. The supreme court's decision for the officers right to conduct a full search of a car was found to be a violation of the fourth amendment. Therefore, Knowles won his case and was not forced to have his car searched. 5. This case has impacted our country because officers are no longer aloud to search any citizens car that was only pulled over for a speeding ticket.

1. Jess Brucker 2. Brown v Texas 1979 3. The issue was that he thought his 4th Amendment right was violated for being asked for information about himself for no apparent reason. 4. The decision was that he did not have to give information because the police had no reasonable suspicion to identify him, so the man won his case. 5. The decision ment the man did not have to identify himself. It impacted our country by showing that you can fight the case of the 4th Amendment and win as long as police don't have enough suspicion to question you.

1:Marki 2:James v. Illinois(1990) 3:the reason the amendment was challenged because James got accused of murder and then he got some evidence illegally and he wanted to be able to get it without being penalized. 4:The courts decision was to not use the illegal evidence. 5: This means that even though it is evidence it is illegal and can't be used and this was applied to other court cases.

2: Groh v. Ramirez. argued-November 4, 2003 decided- February 24, 2004 3: Jeff Groh applied for a search warrant to search the Ramirezes ranch for illegal weapons. later the Ramirezes sued Groh and the law enforcement officers involved in the search in federal court for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. They argued that the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment requirement that any items searched for be described in the warrant. 4: Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. Him and the rest of the court decided that the warrants search was unreasonable. The court got an official warrant to search the Ramerizes home to see if there actually was anything unusual. Nothing was found so Jeff Groh went to jail for violating the Ramerizes fourth amendement rights. 5: The decision meant that seaching in someone elses house for looking for illegal weapons is a bad idea if you dont have your facts straight. The impact was that it taught our country a lesson for unreasonable searching with a warrant.
 * 1: Abbey Thomas**

2.__United States v. Calandra__ Argued October 11, 1973--Decided January 8, 1974 3. John Calandra's place of business was searched by federal agents under a warrent issued in connection with a gambling investigation specifying the object of the search was bookmaking recording and gambling related paraphernalia an agent discovered a loansharking record and siezed it. Calandra claimed that the evidence found was outside the scope of the warrant violating his 4th amendment rights so the loansharking evidence could not be used in crimminal proceedings since it was illegally obtained 4.The evidence was ordered supressed and returned to Calandra 5. A persons property cannot be searched or siezed without just cause, the government agents went about this in the wrong way. They should have had a more thorough investigation and obtained a warrant for the loansharking crime before proceeding with the search.**
 * //1.Tori Gonzalez//

1. Maggie DePaul 2. __Gerald Devenpeck et al. vs. Jerome Anthony Alford -2004__ 3. Amendment 4 applies to this case because Gerald Devenpeck (police) had an unreasonable seizure on Jerome Alford. The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable seizures, unless there was a good reason to have one. 4. A state court judge dismissed charges against Alford, ruling - as another state court already had - that the Privacy Act did not apply to public police work. Alford then sued the officers in federal district court, alleging his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. 5. The decision meant that Alford had won this case. It also meant that Gerald and the other officers had been sued for having an unreasonable seizure.

On a Thursday afternoon in August 1998, Booker Hudson, Jr. sat in the front room of his Detroit home. Suddenly, seven Detroit police officers burst through his front door, and ordered him to freeze. They had a search warrant for drugs. One of the officers, Officer Jamal Good, found five rocks of crack cocaine in Hudson's pocket. After the police found more drugs and a gun elsewhere in Hudson's house, Hudson was charged in Wayne County Circuit Court with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and illegal firearm possession. Hudson's attorney, Richard Korn, moved to suppress the evidence found in the home. He argued that the police had violated Hudson's 4th Amendment rights by ignoring the knock and announcement requirement upon entering any home. The officers did not knock on the front door, however they did wait three to five seconds, after announcing themselves as the police, before they entered. The prosecutor in this case acknowledged that three to five seconds was not a reasonable warning for Hudson to answer the door, and decided that the Detroit officers violated the knock and announcement requirement. One officer argued he had been shot at before, so he didn't want to wait. In spite of the case //People vs. Stevens,// that ruled that evidence found after a knock and anouncement violation does not necessarily have to be suppressed, the trial court judge ruled that the evidence found in Hudson's home should be suppressed and dismissed of the charges. This decision means that if the police don't follow the specific rules for search and seizures, they can't accuse you of that crime.
 * //__Maya:__ BOOKER vs. MICHIGAN//**

 1. Noelle W. 2. Indianapolis v. Edmond 2000 3. Indianapolis started stopping cars to search for drugs. They didn't have a good reason to do it, just to check to see if people had drugs with them. They had no evidence that anyone had drugs with them. 4. They decided it didn't violate the 4th amendment. 5. It meant they would continue to search for drugs in vehicles.

ky is doing ohio vs. terry

1.Christy Smetana 2.Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart (2005) 3.Police saw a fight and under aged drinking.They came into the house and arrested them without a warrant. 4.They decided that it did violate the 4th amendment. 5.This means that police can't always enter a house without a warrant even if they see something happening.

1. Kristina Genovese 2. [|**Vernonia v. Acton**] 1995 3. A school in Oregon was concerned about student athletes health. They decided to test the students for drug use. James Acton refused to take the drug tests and was disallowed from the high school football program. 4. THey decided that since it was for student safety and health they were allowed to test students for drugs. 5. This means that any school can test students for drugs and students don't have the freedom to decline it.

1.Colleen Burdsall 2. California vs. Greenwood 3. It was about police obtaining a search warrant for Greenwood's house on evidence found in his garbage that was placed at the curb in front of his house. State Court dismissed changes because the trash searches were warrantless and violated the 4th amendment. 4.When he put the garbage out at the curb it became public property and able to be searched. Greenwood daimed society deserved protection from government invasion.The court found Greenwoods claim was without merit and Californias' constitution a amendment did not violate the 14th amendment or 4th amendment. 5.The impact was that the police have the right to conduct the search. 1. Colleen Burdsall

1. Alyssa Fay 2. Smith v. The state of Maryland(1979) 3. Patricia McDonough was robbed and she gave the police a description of the robber, Patricia got the license plate number and the police cought the robber. 4. The outcome was that the robber was served with two years of prision. Was let out in 1981. 5. The impact was that people can't have unreasonable search and seizure. People can not go around stealing other peoples things.

1. Danny Da Silva 2. Lawrence vs. Texas 3. Lawrence a gay Texas citizen says he was deprived of his right to privacy and equal protection under the law when he and his lover were aressted for violating the staes Homosexual Conduct laws. 4. Lawrence's case could have been the opening of the floodgates for homosexual marriges but lawrence had lost the case and was fined $200. 5. This case could have had a huge impact if Lawrence had won. If lawrence had won gay marriges would be alittle bit different, but he lost. __**1.sam margalotti 2.luther vs. borden-1849 3.the amendment was challenged because luther was searched by borden and luther said that the warrent was not right. 4.the decision was that the warrent was correct and luther went to jail for 3 years. 5.that ment that the warrent was legal and he got arrested.

1.Alex Ashmore**__ //2.Florida vs Riley (1989)// 3.The reason the Fourth Amendment was applied to this case was because a Florida county sheriff received a tip that Riley was growing marijuana on his five acres of rural property. Unable to see inside a greenhouse, which was behind Riley's mobile home, the sheriff circled over the property using a helicopter. The absence of two roof panels allowed the sheriff to see clearly what appeared to be marijuana growing inside. A warrant was obtained and marijuana was found in the greenhouse. Riley successfully argued before the trial court that the aerial search violated his 4th Amendment rights for protection against unreasonable search and seizure. 4.The Supreme Court ruled that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation that the greenhouse was protected from aerial view, and thus that the helicopter surveillance did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. 5.The Supreme Court went go on to say that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace. This has made an impact on our country in which police are allowed to watch an individual's property from a public place such as a road.

__**Andrew Kero is doing Arizona V. Gant**__

__Vasil is doing Minnesota v. Dickerson 1993
 * 1) Maria Nocerino
 * 2) Wallace, Andre vs Kato, Kristen & Roy, Eugene- November 06, 2006
 * 3) He was falsely arrested
 * 4) First the decision was that Wallace was found guilty but later on after spending nearly 8 years in jail the charges were dropped and he was let out of jail.
 * 5) This ment that you **__must__** be arrested properly with more than one piece of evidence, then charged, questioned, and then finally if you confess doing it you can be put in prison.

1.Vasil Mico 2.Minnesota v.Dickerson 1993__ 3.A minnesota police officer suspected cocaine being sold at a local house. The officer just came in and ordered a search on the house. Indeed they did find cocaine and crack in the house but Dickerson complained that he was protected under his fourth amendment rights of unreasonable search and seizures. 4.The decision was favored to the officer. The supreme court claimed that any officer can seize any nonthreatening contraband if detected through touch and a pat down. 5. It means any officer can check your body by feeling the pockets or any place you would be able to hide something. So any cop may come into your house and give you a pat down.

**1.Tayler Bramley**
2. Minnesota state vs. Fort May 1, 2003. 3. This amendment was challenged because a police officer approached a man in his car one night, and asked him many questions, and said that he was a drug person because he found drugs and weapons in the car. 4. Police expansion of a routine traffic stop beyond the underlying justification for the stop violates Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution unless there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity beyond the traffic offense.?Evidence obtained as a result of a search based on consent obtained by exploitation of an impermissibly expanded traffic stop must be suppressed. 5. It states that cops can not stop someone because they are suspisious. They have to know that they did some crime.

1.Jon Dagati 2.U.S. v. Knights 3.Knights was arrested on drug charges. He had to agree to be searched at anytime without a court order. When they searched his home he felt that his fourth amendment rights were violated. 4. The Court decided that he probation officers had "reasonable cause" to search and because he agreed to it, it did not violate the fourth amendment. 5. no real impact <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< 1. Sam Bird 2. Mapp v. Ohio 3. Seven police officers broke into to Dolly Map's house in Cleveland, Ohio. They said that she was a suspect in a recent bombing. Police claimed to have a search rwarrant but no evidence showed. 4./5. The Supreme Court overturned this convictionon the grounds that the search was illegal. This also incorporated the 4th amendment into the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment and created the "exclusionary rule". <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
 * 1) Lauren Fabiano
 * 2) Maryland v. Wilson (1997)
 * 3) Wilson got pulled over for speeding and the usage of cocaine
 * 4) He was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
 * 5) This decision meant that he is going to jail because he had possession of drugs, and was speeding. The impact he had on the world was that he was one of the very many to go to jail for having drugs, and it is against the law to have anything to do with drugs.

UNITED STATES //v.// KNIGHTS
1.Dan Hawk =2.United States v. Montoya De Hernandez [1985]= 3. The fourth amendment was applied, when Montoya De Hernandez was arrested and convicted of smuggling drugs over the ocean from Bogota, Columbia. She transported them via an alimentary canal. She then appealed to the 9th circuit, saying that her fourth amendment rights, protecting her from unreasonable search and seizure, were violated. She felt this because she was detained under suspicion only. The 9th circuit overturned the district court's ruling. The prosecution appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that the officers had the right to detain her due to suspicion that originated from clues like, a swollen abdomen, the location she was coming from, and upon inspection, the officers found that she was wearing several pairs of elastic underwear. 4. The decision reversed the 9th circuit decision. They upheld the district court's decision. 5. This means that cops can search you under suspicion alone. What this means for the country is that due to irrational facts, like profiling, a police officer could search and detain any # of people for any # of reasons.

Cameron K is doing UNITED STATES V. GRUBBS