Preview

Wyoming V. Shatzer

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
617 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Wyoming V. Shatzer
Wyoming v. Houghton 526 U.S. 295 (1999)
FACTS: After a routine traffic stop, a police officer noticed a hypodermic syringe in the shirt pocket of the car’s driver, which the driver soon admitted was for using drugs. The officer searched the passenger compartment for contraband and came upon a purse, which the respondent, a passenger in the car, claimed was hers. There was drug paraphernalia inside, and the respondent was arrested on drug charges. The evidence was admitted at trial and respondent was convicted. The Wyoming Supreme Court then reversed, holding that an officer with probable cause to search a vehicle may search all containers that might conceal the object of the search, but if the officer knows or should know that the container belongs to a passenger who is not suspected of criminal activity, then the container is not allowed to be searched under the Fourth Amendment unless someone had the opportunity to conceal contraband. The State of Wyoming was then granted certiorari.
ISSUES:
1. Whether a search of a purse found inside a car violated the 4th Amendment when the search was of a passenger’s belongings inside a car where there was probable cause to believe the car contained contraband.
COURT DECISION: Reversed for the State
RATIONALE FOR THE DECIOSION: by Justice Scalia 1. After a hearing, the trial court denied her motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the purse as the fruit of a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court held that the officer had probable cause to search the car for contraband, and, by extension, any containers therein that could hold such contraband. 2. Since a passenger’s privacy expectations are diminished, and governmental interests at stake are large, the balancing of Fourth Amendment interests leans toward allowing searches of passengers’ belongings.

CONCURRING OPINIONS: by BREYER, J. 1. The Supreme Court has previously held that if the police have probable cause to

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    4th Amendment protects your right against unreasonable search and seizure of property, papers, or people without valid probable cause…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This would mean that the defendant had the right to detain the defendant. The defendant can not be liable for the arrest of the defendant, which was performed by police officers in response to the resistance of the plaintiff, Holguin. Conclusion While the district court believed that Holguin’s concealment of the merchandise by placing it into her tote was willful concealment and satisfied probable cause that she intended to shoplift, the Court of Appeals disagreed, requiring more evidence of intent than just simply putting the item out of sight. The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the order…

    • 927 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    At the trial, Tate moved to suppress evidence obtained during the investigation. As he did this, he noticed that when Officer Benda parked behind Tate, it was an unlawful seizure according to the fourth amendment. The court concluded that he was seized with reason to believe Tate was under the influence. This caused the conclusions to be reversed and was therefore inadmissible at trail. This case was moved to the district court and this court concluded that a person could not be seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment if he is unaware of the police presence. The court also concluded that Officer Benda had reasonable suspicion to arrest Tate, thus reversing the conclusions and was therefore inadmissible at…

    • 448 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    This case brings the question up of was T.LO's rights broken or not. The fourth amendment is 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. T.L.O is the person who sued because she felt that the contents in her bag were only found because it was searched unlawfully. In Juvenile Court it was decided that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation. T.L.O was searched without probably cause of any illegal activity. The fact that she was smoking cigarettes in school have the principle no reason to think she is dealing marijuana.…

    • 314 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Terry V. Ohio Case Brief

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Constitution, protecting them against unreasonable search and seizures. The court rejected the defenses opinion, in that the weapons were seized due to a lawful search incident to arrest. The motion to suppress was denied because the court found that the officer had cause to believe the men were acting suspiciously, the seizer and question was warranted and the officers own right to safety had the right the pat down the suspects’ outer clothing, believing that the suspects may be…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Essay Arizona vs. Grant

    • 356 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The case Arizona vs. Grant occured because an event that happened on August 25, 1999 involving two police officers, and a suspect who was believed to be involved in narcotics activity. The officers first visit to the house where the suspect lived was followed by a second visit later that night because he wasnt there at the initial visit. After their first visit they ran a background check and found causes for the arrest of the subject, Rodney Grant. Upon the second return the subject Rodney Grant was apprehended after pulling into his driveway and walking about ten feet towards the officers. After they placed him in the police vehicle, they searched the suspects car, which was the cause of the Arizona vs Grant case, because of a debate on evidence pulled from the car without reasonable reasons to search it. Although there was cocaine and a weapons in the car, the officers didnt have reasons to prove why the searched it after the suspect had already been apprehended and put into the police vehicle. It is because of this that led to questioning of why the car was searched because Grant was not in the nearby vicinity of the vehicle and therefore no harm to the officers unless he had a weapons in his immediate possession.…

    • 356 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    4rth Amendment

    • 6813 Words
    • 28 Pages

    The case present before us involves the constitutionality of a dog sniff in regards to the 4rth Amendment. The respondent claims that the police officer, a representative of the State of Florida lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. The dog used in the operation, Aldo was not reliable since his detector certification had expired. Also, the officer did not maintain a record of his field performance alerts. As a result, the respondent contends that Aldo’s alert was false thereby diminishing the validity of probable cause. On the other hand, the State of Florida counters by arguing that probable cause is a flexible common sense standard and requires only a fair probability and not hard certainties. Moreover, the officer who had trained with the dog is the best judge of the dog’s credibility as opposed to the Court’s especially since law enforcement agencies act with good faith. Consequently, defense counsel moved to suppress the physical evidence as the product of a warrantless search without probable cause. The trial court denied the motion to suppress but made no findings. The respondent then appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. They affirmed. Harris v. State, 989 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the lower court decision. Harris v. State, 71 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2011). The Court scrutinized the case under the totality of the circumstances test established in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) and concluded that Aldo’s reliability, was not enough to demonstrate probable cause.…

    • 6813 Words
    • 28 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    case study

    • 306 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Case Signifance: The 4th amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America.…

    • 306 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Horton v California

    • 648 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In California a police officer decided to search petitioner Horton’s home because he felt there was probable cause, the officer was searching for the stolen goods and the weapons used during the crime. The warrant given to the officer only authorized him to search for the stolen goods. As he made his way into the home of petitioner Horton he did not recover the stolen items, but found the weapons used during the crime and recovered them. When it got to the court the recovered weapons were allowed to be used against Horton, and Horton was later convicted of the crime. Since the officer testified that he did have intentions of looking for other evidence while looking for the stolen goods, the California court of appealed the conviction and then granted certiorari.…

    • 648 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Terry Stop Case Study

    • 2397 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that Terry and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer, for his own protection, had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Terry and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was…

    • 2397 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Arizona vs Grant

    • 1130 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The U.S. Supreme Court limits how police searches a vehicle after Arizona v. Grant. April 21, 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court adds new limits on how law enforcement officer can search the passenger compartments of a vehicle. Due to this ruling, police officers require having either evidence of a crime for which the suspect is being arrested for, or the officers are completing a weapons check that could be within reach of the suspect. Arizona v. Grant makes important changes within the Fourth Amendment. After New York v. Belton, the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed officers to search the passenger compartment of any vehicle when the person was being arrested that was driving or was a passenger in without a warrant. Belton’s justification was the fact that a person can constitutionally be search for weapons and any other evidence, and further that any officer can search the immediate area of control for weapons or any other evidence. Since the new ruling with Arizona v. Grant overturns the ruling of New York v. Belton, and sets a new standard for what is allowed during a search in a car related arrested.…

    • 1130 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Case Of Charles Katz

    • 787 Words
    • 4 Pages

    New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985), student bag was search and the Fourth Amendment did not apply to her even though it was her personal bag and expectation of privacy was high but due to her being on public property she lost her right to privacy. She was prosecuted but he was able to get his evidence…

    • 787 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Fourth Amendment reads according to the U.S. Constitution (1995), 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. Constitution, 1995).…

    • 2087 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    When law enforcement or an government agency take it upon themselves to enter someone home or search a vehicle without a valid search warrant they are violating that persons Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. Evidence that could be admissible in a case may be excluded from trial if it is gather as a resulted from an illegal search or some other constitutional violation. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of most evidence gathered illegally. The rule can also be triggered by law enforcement violations of a person’s Fifth or Sixth Amendments right as well. I feel that is the case as it contains to John Smith and the search of his…

    • 115 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Most Americans today don’t know what rights we are given. The Bill of Rights were put in place to give US citizens protection from corrupt police and government officials. A common Amendment that most Americans don’t realize we have is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment gives us protection against arbitrary searches and seizures without a proper warrant. It was first used to prevent the use of writs of assistance which is blanket search warrants with which the british custom officials had invaded homes to search for smuggled goods. As the fourth amendment has changed and evolved in its meaning over time, many Supreme Court cases have presented themselves to the states.…

    • 1041 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays