Constitutional Rights Paper - Search and Seizure

Our constitutional rights today are pretty much laid out by the supreme court, and decisions are made which affect our everyday lives in select court cases. These cases can establish new laws, protect and define the current laws, or disprove lower courts' power.

In Katz V. The US, the supreme court was forced to determine whether or not the court of appeals made the correct decision, and whether or not Katz 4th amendment right was actually violated. Katz was charged by the lower courts for transferring information from state to state. He believed it violated his right to privacy; the 4th amendment. The supreme court decided that Katz was knowingly exposing to the public information, and that he didn't have the right to privacy in that conversation. Congress later lpassed Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act authorizing microphone surveillance or wiretapping. This could apply to anyone's everyday life because wiretapping and denial of privacy in "public" conversations can happen to anyone.

In Mapp V. Ohio, the police illegally searched a woman's house for what they figured would be illegal betting equipment. They eventually found illegal pornographic images in a briefcase which she claimed wasn't hers. Since the police had no search warrant, the supreme court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, because the evidence used to prosecute the woman was illegally obtained, and therefore invalid to use in court. The police cannot search citizen's houses unless a judge issues a search warrant. This could affect just about anyone because people need to be educated and realize that a search warrant is actually required for a policeman to enter your home; and if they obtain "evidence" without a warrant, you're not at fault!

In California V. Ciraolo, the police had obvious reason that a man was growing marijuana in his backyard. They then flew a plane at a relatively high altitude above his house to spot the marijuana, because a large fence encircled his house. They spotted the marijuana, and obtained a search warrant. After obtaining the search warrant, they tried the man and he plead guilty and was charged with possession. The supreme court reversed the court of appeal's decision, who said that it was illegal for the police to fly a plane over the man's house. The man was still charged for possession, to a 5-4 decision; still a relatively hot topic. This could apply to anyone, because not everyone will understand that the police can legally fly a plane over your house and view the contents of your backyard and possibly the insides of your house. Covering up illegal contents from someone on foot doesn't necessarily work...

In Zurcher V. Stanford Daily, the police had reason to believe that the students of a newspaper crew had photos of a violent event, which could help identify the criminals in the situation. The court case was taken to the supreme court to determine whether or not the Daily Newsroom's 1st and 4th amendments were violated. The supreme court reversed the decision. It's legal to search for something if you believe that it may contain evidence linking to another crime. This could easily apply to anyone's everyday lives, because even if they're not directly linked to a crime, they still may have evidence, and therefore may be legally searched.

In US V. Ross, police had reason to believe that someone's car was full of illegal narcotics. They also believed that they were selling these narcotics. The car was found, searched, and narcotics were found in a bag, and money was found in another. Both were opened, however the lower court decided that the police should have obtained a warrant before opening these containers. The supreme court ruled against this, claiming that the search warrant includes anything in the car, not individual containers. This applies easily to everyone because without this establishment, anyone with drugs could easily just hide the drugs within another container, and the police wouldn't have the right to even open them without the warrant passed from a judge, and if not, the evidence was illegally obtained and illegal.

All of these cases help define the way we live. We have to realize that not every law is written down directly on paper. There are several different aspects to look at with every law, and the supreme court often decides differently than the lower courts. Any of these types of events could happen to anyone, at anytime.