4th, 5th, and 6th amendment
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and provides that no
warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons to be seized. In order to establish probable
cause, the officer must establish that there is a fair probability that the area to be searched
contains evidence or the person to be arrested has committed a crime; a mere possibility is
insufficient. A search without a warrant is presumed unreasonable absent the presence of a
recognized exception. U.S. v. Johnson. The Supreme Court has held that this is
permissible, but only under certain circumstances.
The first issue is whether Detective Davis (DD) committed a search when she went
down to the basement. A search occurred if Bishop Short had a subjective expectation of
privacy which society would deem to be reasonable (Katz v. U.S.) The defense would likely
argue that the Bishop (B) had a subjective expectation of privacy in the basement, and that there
was an objective expectation of privacy also because only the area where services took place
were open to the public. The government would counter by arguing that DD simply walked
downstairs during the services, which were open to the public, so anyone had access to this area.
Additionally, there was a children’s playroom, which could be used to take loud or crying babies
during the services, and that was therefore accessible to the public. If other members of society
could gain access and view the basement, then there was not an objective expectation of privacy.
1
Accordingly, DD did not commit a search simply by going into the basement.
Whether a search occurred becomes less clear once DD entered B’s office. The
government would argue that the door was open,
houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and provides that no
warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons to be seized. In order to establish probable
cause, the officer must establish that there is a fair probability that the area to be searched
contains evidence or the person to be arrested has committed a crime; a mere possibility is
insufficient. A search without a warrant is presumed unreasonable absent the presence of a
recognized exception. U.S. v. Johnson. The Supreme Court has held that this is
permissible, but only under certain circumstances.
The first issue is whether Detective Davis (DD) committed a search when she went
down to the basement. A search occurred if Bishop Short had a subjective expectation of
privacy which society would deem to be reasonable (Katz v. U.S.) The defense would likely
argue that the Bishop (B) had a subjective expectation of privacy in the basement, and that there
was an objective expectation of privacy also because only the area where services took place
were open to the public. The government would counter by arguing that DD simply walked
downstairs during the services, which were open to the public, so anyone had access to this area.
Additionally, there was a children’s playroom, which could be used to take loud or crying babies
during the services, and that was therefore accessible to the public. If other members of society
could gain access and view the basement, then there was not an objective expectation of privacy.
1
Accordingly, DD did not commit a search simply by going into the basement.
Whether a search occurred becomes less clear once DD entered B’s office. The
government would argue that the door was open,