Mediaboss Marketing

CALIFORNIA | LOCAL

November 7, 2011 | By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times

Sunset Strip bookie Charlie Katz suspected the feds had bugged his apartment, so he would amble over to a pay phone outside where Carney's hot dog joint now stands to call in his bets to Boston and Miami. It was 1965, a time when phone booths had four glass walls and a folding door, allowing Katz to seal himself off from eavesdroppers. Or so he thought. FBI agents planted a recording device at the booth and taped his dealings, leading to his conviction on eight illegal wagering charges.

OPINION

April 9, 2009 | Lawrence Rosenthal, Lawrence Rosenthal is a professor of law at Chapman University School of Law in Orange.

John Yoo is a professor of law at UC Berkeley. This semester, he is my colleague -- as a visiting professor -- at Chapman University's School of Law. Yoo is also under investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general for his role in producing a number of controversial memorandums during his service in the department during the Bush administration. The memos include one stating that the president may authorize the torture of suspected terrorists. I am a former federal prosecutor.

NATIONAL

October 21, 2003 | David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

The Supreme Court said Monday that it would consider creating a new right to remain silent -- this time for people who are stopped, but not arrested, by police. A stubborn Nevada man who was standing along a roadway when an officer approached him will get a hearing to decide a basic question that the high court has never squarely answered: Does the Constitution give a person the right to refuse to identify himself to the police?

NEWS

March 29, 2000 | DAVID G. SAVAGE, TIMES STAFF WRITER

In a rare rebuff to police, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that an officer may not stop and frisk a pedestrian based only on an anonymous caller's tip. Instead, the justices reaffirmed the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and stressed that officers need specific, reliable evidence of some wrongdoing before they stop a person on the street. The surprising 9-0 ruling threw out gun-wielding charges against a black youth in Miami who was frisked and arrested at a bus stop.

NEWS

December 2, 1998 | DAVID G. SAVAGE, TIMES STAFF WRITER

The Supreme Court narrowed the privacy protection of the 4th Amendment Tuesday, ruling that short-term visitors to a home are not shielded from police surveillance. The 6-3 decision reinstated the drug convictions of two Minnesota men who were observed by an officer who had peeked through the window blinds of a ground-floor apartment. The men, who were seen putting white powder into bags, did not live in the apartment nor were they overnight guests.

CALIFORNIA | LOCAL

April 8, 1998 | GREG KRIKORIAN, TIMES STAFF WRITER

In the abstract, there are few civil liberties the average person holds as dear as the constitutional protection against unlawful searches and seizures. But that affection is often tested when the 4th Amendment, like a bolted front door, is all that stands between police and the arrest of someone who officers say is a criminal. That is precisely the issue in what many legal observers are calling a groundbreaking case now before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory Alarcon.

View post:
Articles about Fourth Amendment - latimes

Fourth Amendment - The 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 or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth Amendment - The Meaning Protection against Unreasonable Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. A search can mean everything from a frisking by a police officer to a blood test to a search of an individuals home or car. A seizure occurs when the government takes control of an individual or something in his or her possession. Items that are seized often are used as evidence when the individual is charged with a crime.

The Fourth Amendment imposes certain limitations on police investigating a crime and prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence at trial. But it does not restrict all searches. For example, courts have ruled that school officials may search school lockers and require that students who participate in extracurricular activities undergo random drug testing.

More:
Annenberg Classroom - Fourth Amendment

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

- U.S. Const. amend. IV.

NACDL seeks to ensure that the Fourth Amendment remains a vibrant protection against encroachments on the privacy of the individual through litigation and public advocacy. The Fourth Amendment is the appropriate starting point for assessing the limits on government intrusion into ones privacy, and its protections must continue to thrive in the digital age. The Fourth Amendment and its guarantees should not turn on the medium used to transmit private information, nor on how the information is stored. NACDL strives to guarantee that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is excluded in a court of law.

NEW! NACDL REPORT: Mail Cover Surveillance: Problems and Recommendations

Visit link:
NACDL - Fourth Amendment

"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 or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. So-called "writs of assistance" gave royal officers broad discretion to conduct searches of the homes of private citizens, primarily as a way of discovering violations of strict British customs laws. This practice led to a unique awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat to individual liberty and privacy that is created by unchecked government search powers.

Today, the Fourth Amendment has lost its preferred status among our cherished Bill of Rights Protections. In recent decades, growing concerns regarding crime and public safety in America have forced our Courts to balance the privacy rights contained in the Constitution with the ever-expanding needs of law-enforcement officers whose duty it is to investigate and arrest dangerous criminals. The Supreme Court's rulings in Fourth Amendment cases demonstrate the challenge involved in reconciling these competing ideals.

Ultimately, the Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures has been trimmed-down in recent years and tailored to suit the needs of modern law enforcement as we wage war against drugs and terrorism. For this reason, it is important for conscientious citizens to be familiar with the lawful parameters of police authority to conduct searches, as well as the legal doctrines by which that authority is limited.

The Fifth Amendment: Self-incrimination Clause

"...No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law..."

* The Supreme Court has made a new ruling that you must tell the police officer that you will NOT talk to him, you request a lawyer and then keep your mouth shut.

The right against self-incrimination has ancient roots in common law dating back to biblical times. While most provisions of the Fifth Amendment, such as the right to a jury trial and the right against double jeopardy, impose restrictions upon our courthouses, the right against self-incrimination has a profound effect upon the behavior of law-enforcement officers as they investigate crimes. For this reason, the meaning of the self-incrimination clause has remained one of the most controversial issues in criminal procedure since the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.

At this time, it is required by the Supreme Court that police inform all criminal suspects of their right to remain silent prior to interrogation. This right extends from the point of arrest throughout the suspect's involvement in the criminal justice system. While many in the law-enforcement community feel that this restriction unfairly limits the ability of police and prosecutors to obtain convictions, studies have shown that conviction rates have not changed significantly since the Court first required police to inform those arrested of their right against self-incrimination.

The Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel Clause

"In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a critical component of the Bill of Rights in that it provides the accused with an advocate who is trained in the legal process and can provide a safeguard against violations of the suspect's other Bill of Rights protections. Interestingly, it was not until 1963 that the Supreme Court held that states must provide a lawyer for all felony suspects, ending disparities in legal representation based on economic class.

Today, all person charged with a serious crime in the United States enjoy the assistance of a defense attorney regardless of economic status. State-employed public defenders represent clients who cannot afford their own attorneys, and contrary to popular belief, achieve roughly equal outcomes for their clients as do the more expensive privately-hired lawyers.

The Relationship Between Self-incrimination and the Right to Counsel

Many Americans, particularly young people, have become cynical about police practices and our legal system. It is not uncommon to lose hope when arrested or even become angry at the officer or the law he is enforcing. It is an important reality however, that our legal system does provide services for the accused. It cannot be overstated how important it is to wait for legal advice before attempting to discuss a criminal charge with police. The subtleties of the legal process require careful decisions about what to say and how to say it. A lawyer will help you prepare for tough questions and can emphasize your positive qualities to the judge, including qualities you didn't know you had.

The constitution includes protections for criminal suspects because the legal system is incredibly complex, involving rules and regulations that everyday people would not understand. If you are charged with a crime, take advantage of the protections the constitution gives you. Don't talk to police about what happened until you have spoken with a lawyer and discussed how to present your side of the story.

News and Information at:

PoliceCrimes.com

This Site Has Been Online Since 2004

fourth amendment, constitution, miranda rights, 4th amendment, searches, fourth amendment, dont talk rights constitution, miranda rights, 4th amendment, searches, rights, civil rights, self incrimination, unreasonable searches, right counsel, bill rights, searches, fourth. Silent, dont talk rights, Jury, cop, Jury trial, police, fourth amendment, constitution, miranda rights, 4th amendment, searches, fourth amendment, dont talk rights constitution, miranda rights, 4th amendment, searches, rights, civil rights, self incrimination, unreasonable searches, right counsel, bill rights, searches, fourth. Silent, dont talk rights, Jury, cop, Jury trial, fourth amendment, constitution, 4th amendment, search, american, rights, body search, civil rights, self incrimination, unreasonable searches, right counsel, bill rights, searches, fourth, Silent, police, courts, Judge, the Fifth, Sixth, police, Supreme Court, courts, Judge, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment. Americans, lawyer, Supreme Court, fifth amendment, silent, dont talk rights, civil rights, self incrimination, unreasonable searches, right counsel, bill rights, searches, fourth. dont talk rights Supreme Court, courts, Judge, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment. Americans, lawyer, Supreme Court, fifth amendment, silent, dont talk rights, civil rights, self incrimination, unreasonable searches, right counsel, bill rights, searches, fourth. dont talk rights.

See the original post here:
Fourth Amendment Body Search Home Search You rights ...

A federal appellate court on Wednesday widened a split among circuits on a major privacy question thats pending before the U.S. Supreme Court: Fourth Amendment protection for cellphone location information.

In United States v. Graham, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the governments warrantless search of the cellphone location information of two accused robbery defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights. However, because the government relied in good faith on court orders issued under the federal Stored Communications Act, the information could be admitted as evidence in their trial.

Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union and private counsel filed a petition for review in the high court in Davis v. United States. In that case, a divided en banc Eleventh Circuit held that the criminal defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in cellphone location records held by his service provider. And even if a Fourth Amendment search had taken place, the court said, use of an Stored Communications Act order rather than a warrant was reasonable because the privacy intrusion was minor and the government had a compelling interest in investigating crimes.

The petition asks the justices to decide whether the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies to these searches and seizures. It also asks whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when the search was based on a court order sought by a prosecutor, particularly when the relevant statute gave the prosecutor the option of pursuing a warrant.

In the Fourth Circuit case decided Wednesday, the government secured court orders, under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) for 221 days worth of cellphone location information from Sprint/Nextel. The government ultimately used the information at trial to establish the defendants locations at various times before and after most of the charged robberies.

Senior Judge Andre Davis, joined by Judge Stephanie Thacker, wrote:

Examination of a persons historical CSLI (cell site location information) can enable the government to trace the movements of the cellphone and its user across public and private spaces and thereby discover the private activities and personal habits of the user. Cellphone users have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in this information. Its inspection by the government, therefore, requires a warrant, unless an established exception to the warrant requirement applies.

The established exception in this case, Davis added, was the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

Here, the government is entitled to the good-faith exception because, in seeking appellants CSLI, the government relied on the procedures established in the SCA and on two court orders issued by magistrate judges in accordance with the SCA, Davis wrote.

The Stored Communications Act includes no direction on when the government should seek a warrant versus an order, he said.

More:
Fourth Amendment Protects Cellphone Location Data, Appeals ...