Read each paragraph and give me your opinion do you agree do you disagree with those 4 paragraphs one for each part and if you agree or disagree why or why not CJ
1.Express your position on the Court’s decision in United States v. Place, using an additional case to support your opinion.The term search and seizure is often used as one term; in reality, they are two different terms and refer to different acts also reasonable expectation of privacy requires that the person must have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy and the expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, meaning with the case United States v. Place is case of such. This case was brought under mere suspicion and although there were substantial evidence they waited to long to execute and that caused the court to over turn the verdict. Describe the constitutional requirements that apply, or do not apply, in canine searches. The United States Supreme Court appears to have limited this objection by indicating that the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to the use of dogs to examine inanimate objects. This comment discusses the constitutional parameters of the use of drug-detecting dogs. It also explores the principles that underlie those parameters by closely examining a series of opinions regarding their use. This analysis begins with an examination of Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals criminal cases involving trained dogs. The treatment of this subject by the United Stated Supreme Court has been limited, and so will be discussed within the context of Ninth Circuit decisions relying upon it. One case United States v. Solis The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit first considered the question of whether the sniff of a dog constituted a search in United States v. Solis. The courts there held that the use of dogs was not unreasonable under the circumstances and therefore was not a prohibited search under the Fourth Amendment. Differentiate between the constitutionality of canine searches versus other searches that require probable cause. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. A search and seizures is considered unreasonable if it is conducted by police without a valid search warrant, and does not fall under an exception to the warrant requirement. A valid search warrant must meet for requirements, the warrant must be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer, the warrant must be based on reliable information showing probable cause to search, the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate and the warrant must state specifically the place to be searched and the items to be seized. With that being said the same rules applies with canine searches; it has to be warranted, although there are certain exception of if canine is brought in to recovery evidence.
Bottom of Form
2.Canine Searches United States v. Place (1983) While I agree with the drug-sniffing dog search, I give pause when it comes to the length of time that it took to achieve the search. The DEA agents in New York were called by law enforcement in Miami and given a heads up about the situation and the suspicion of potential drugs being carried. The DEA had plenty of time to have drug-sniffing dogs on scene and ready to do their job plus be in a position to have a warrant available with the information they had available from the Miami-Dade Police department. Mr. Place should have never been separated from his luggage unless there was a warrant showing it was going to be searched or he was being arrested on drug charges. The detainment of the luggage should have never taken 90 plus minutes to occur as well. I don’t necessarily think that using drug-sniffing dogs invadeour 4th Amendment rights because they are not actually getting into the luggage, house, of frisking the person that they are sniffing. Florida v. Jardines (11-564, 2012) After receiving an anonymous tip that Mr. Joelis Jardines’ house was being used to grow marijuana, the DEA conducted surveillance on Mr. Jardines house and during the surveillance they brought in drug-sniffing dogs to sniff out the exterior of the house.The dogs alerted DEA agents to the smell of marijuana at the front door, based on this and other indications of marijuana production a search warrant was granted. Drug-sniffing dogs can constitutionally be used in airports, cruise line boarding areas, schools, and traffic stops, though when an officer chooses to use a drug dog it needs to be on the premises. A search by a drug-sniffing dog can take no longer than a normal traffic stop. Flex your rights (n.d.) contends, “if police can’t bring a dog to the scene in the time it takes to run your tags and write a ticket, the use of the dog becomes constitutionally suspect” (para. 2Canine searches are considered less invasive and can be done solely on reasonable suspicion. Wallentine (n.d.) explains, “The Court also ruled that the dog’s sniff of the luggage did not amount to a search. Canine sniffs are not intrusive. The dog’s sniff would only reveal the presence of contraband (presumably the dog would not have alerted on even a full case of dog biscuits)” (para 3). Officers that come upon individuals acting suspicious or on a scene that is suspicious can stop and frisk those individuals on probable cause without a warrant. Searches made by an officer are considered more invasive and can walk a fine line if not conducted properly. Baxter County Sheriff (n.d.) noted, “Likewise, sometimes searches that would be entirely proper and justified are not conducted because the officer lacked self assurance that he or she was permitted to search under the circumstances”(para. 3). When an officer does a search, he is generally searching for weapons that could cause himself of others around him harm or contraband.
Bottom of Form
3. In the case of Schaill by Kross v Tippecanoe County School Corp. The school decided to drug test all students that wanted to participate in extra activities such as sports. The school implemented a policy that any students that wanted to participate in sports would have to agree to random urine drug screening tests to be eligible to play. Two students that wanted to participate in sports were asked to submit to the urine drug screening objected to the concept. The case went to court but the court upheld the school’s policy. The court felt that this was an acceptable safeguard for students citing that students only have a reasonable expectation of privacy. When it comes to students and schools the students do not have an expectation of privacy so when it comes to issues such as this the violation of rights do not really come into play. I do think that in cases such as this the government can override the individual’s privacy when it comes to matters such as students or employees that are asked to follow a certain policy that is implemented by the institution as long as it is a reasonable request. As a criminal justice professional I do feel that the same rules should apply to college students. I feel that college students should be subject to rules such as this just like the other schools. When you are attending a school you are expected to follow rules and the schools are expected to ensure the safety of those who attend. Places of work are requiring potential and current employees to participate in drug screening schools should also be able to do so if they see fit.
4. Schaill by Kross v. Tippecanoe Cty. School Corp., 679 F. Supp. 833 (N.D. Ind 1988) The courts justify their blanket drug testing stating that student-athletes are subjected to longstanding rules regarding drugs and alcohol on and off campus, have a lesser expectation of privacy than do other students. The Supreme Court asked itself if the harm to be avoided was great enough to warrant the level of intrusion into personal privacy mandated by a urine test, like the Seventh Circuit, it found the harm to be great and in the context of the locker room, the testing only a minor invasion. A major argument has been centered on the safety of athletes and the use of drugs, many athletes have admitted injuries are due or exacerbated by the use of drugs (Chambers, 1995) Chambers (1995) shares, “Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote: “For most of our constitutional history, mass, suspicion less searches have been generally considered per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. However, a majority of the Supreme Court found that students had less privacy rights than others. Not only do they routinely take physical examinations, but also they are usually required to produce a urine sample to test for the presence of glucose” (para. 17). Now that this ruling has passed, some students are coming to terms with it and adopting the mentality that if they ultimately want to play sports they will stop taking the drugs. Chambers (1995) noted, “What the Supreme Court asked itself was whether the harm to be avoided was great enough to warrant the level of intrusion into personal privacy mandated by a urine test. Like the Seventh Circuit, it found the harm to be great, and in the context of the locker room, the testing only a minor invasion”(para. 10). I believe that college students should be treated the same way that student athletes are treated in high school, random drug testing should be a requirement due to the fact that these athletes are more likely to play harder and play with more conviction knowing there is a chance that they could be recruited into a professional sport all with the possibility that they are in college on a sports scholarship and if they are getting college paid for by way of sports they should be clean playing those sports.
Bottom of Form 1