Read (or listen to) the follwoing article about a recent court decision. What was the issue before the court? What amendment was involved? What did the court rule? Do you agree with the majority opinion or the dissenting opinion? Why? What, if any, will be the impact of this decision?
12 Comments
Skylar Shea
5/19/2011 03:05:17 am
Issue: Did the search of Hollis Deshaun King's house violate his fourth amendment rights?
Reply
Madelyn Densberger
5/19/2011 03:18:12 am
Issue: Did the ordenance of the search of Hollis Kings apartment violate his fourth amendment rights of unreasonable search?
Reply
Jaime Echeverria
5/19/2011 04:56:13 am
Issue: did the warantless search of Hollis King's apartment violate his 4th amendment rights?
Reply
Alora Horne
5/19/2011 06:24:24 am
The issue is that, are the police creating emergency circumstances to search houses without warrants, which is unconstitutional and violates the 4th amendment? The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the unwarranted arrest was unconstitutional because they only alerted the inhabitants with a knock and heard movement, which the police though was the burning of evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that although the 4th amendment bars these searches, the police acted reasonably due to the exception where police are allowed to enter without a warrant if they fear evidence is being destroyed, which was the case this time. I agree with the dissenting opinion this time because there should be no excuses to the constitution. There are no excuses in the constitution, therefore, the defendant should be released. The impact of this decision will be the fact that police all over the United States will say they heard movement and feared that evidence was being destroyed, therefore more warrantless searches will be the case. Now the police will have a way to routinely avoid the 4th amendment.
Reply
Kayla Horne
5/19/2011 06:24:41 am
Issue: Did the entry and warrantless search of King's apartment violate the fourth amendment of unreasonable searches and seizures?
Reply
Nadia Harvey
5/19/2011 06:28:14 am
Issue: is it constitutional to violate an individual's fourth amendment right by searching their house without a warrant?
Reply
Gabriela Fernandez
5/19/2011 10:25:26 am
The issue was if the warrantless searching of Hollis King's apartment violated his fourth amendment rights of unreasonable search and seizure?
Reply
Hadley Bickford
5/19/2011 11:59:32 am
The issue at hand was concerning the searching oh Hollis King's apartment, and whether or not it was constitutional. The Suprememe Court ruled 8-1. They claimed that it was due to the scent of marijuana that allowed them to enter and search. However, this lies in a somewhat "gray area" of the fourth amendment. Conversely, because there was only one person in the dissenting opinion, it relies the fact that the Justices were in relative agreement of where the line of the fourth amendment lies. Because eight of them voted this way, I agree with the majority. I believe that the scent of an illegal drug gives reasnable cause, since policemen are trained to recognize it. Consequently, because there is still a gray area, I am concerned that our fourth amendment rights are becoming more and more constricted, therefore leaving us more and more unprotected. This should be a concern for all American citizens, as well as regarding all the amendments, and all of our rights.
Reply
Kiera Louttit
5/19/2011 01:58:03 pm
The issue presented to the supreme court is if warrentless searches and seizure are constitutional if police believe evidence is being destroyed? As of this week it has become easier for police officers to enter home of individuals regardless if they have a warrant or not. This cause brought to the supreme court involved two police officers entering the home of Hollis Deshaun King after they smelt marijuana. The officers knocked yet nobody responded and because they believed evidence was being destroyed they knocked down the door and enter the apartment. This is in complete violation of the fourth amendment which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. I do know agree with the supreme court decision. Potential police officers could walk up to any home and if they hear noise and nobody answers they can just break down the door. It seems as if the fourth amendment doesn't matter anymore.
Reply
Tino Corro
5/19/2011 03:04:37 pm
Issue: Are warrant-less searches and seizures constitutional if police suspect evidence is being destroyed?
Reply
Paul Sargent
9/14/2011 09:50:55 am
We, as human beings, are born with certain 'God given rights' and which include 'property'. A break in without a warren is a strict violation of property and privacy in a forceful and some times unnecessary manner. A sound can indicate a lot of scenarios that have no correlation to whatever might be happening within the suspect's house. A warrant-less break in is not only offensive to the house owner, but is completely unethical in the fact that the hose is owned and paid for by the suspect and anyone, policeman or not, must have legal power to break in to the property regardless of suspicious noise. The Deceleration of Independence was originally written, not for 'the pursuit of happiness', but the pursuit of property.
Reply
Chris Rusiewicz
9/15/2011 10:06:15 am
I think that the impact of this decision will make the line between what a cope can and can’t do when it comes to searching homes without a warrant. If copes need to break down a door to get the people committing the crime before they can destroy the evidence, that’s a very smart idea. What if cops did not get them, they would still be doing and selling drugs to people possibly teens. If we have to give up some of our rights so that we can be safe from dugs so be it.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |