Supreme Court Case (4th Amendment)
Alexis Crump
Landmark Supreme Court Case: Washington V. Chrisman
11/29/9
Plaintiff: State of Washington
Defendant: Chrisman
Plaintiff’s Claim: The drugs that were collected in Chrisman’s dormitory
room was legally obtained and could be used as evidence.
Chief Lawyer for the Plaintiff: Ronald R Carpenter
Chief Lawyer for the Defendant: Robert F Patrick
Judges in Favor of the Court: Harry A. Blackmun, Sandra Day O’Connor,
Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens
Judges in Favor of the Defendant: William J Brennan, Jr., Thurgood
Marshall and Byron R. White
Place: Washington D.C
Date of Verdict: Janurary 13, 1982
Verdict:
-It’s verdict did overthrow the verdict of the Washington Court of Appeals
-The warrantless search of Chrisman’s dorm didn’t violate his Fourth
Amendment right
-Evidence collected at the scene was legally able to be used in the court
Significance:
- It’s an example of the court’s willingness to interpert the Fourth
Amendment involving drug use or exchange
-The court interpreted the plain view rule, for the offer it is a risk but after
the case it frees them from “reviewing courts” on the search and/or seizure
Call for Action:
- In the 1970’s-1980’s drug exchange and use rose to higher levels
-Common drug use with the youth by the late 1970’s
- Public opinion demanded some action be taken by the authorities to curb
the illegal drug trade
-Pressure was sent to the Supreme Court to interpret the Fourth Amendment
to help support officers when investigating drug cases
A Bad Time for a Party:
-ON January 1, 1978 Carl Overdahl was caught with liquor in plain view
leaving his dorm room at Washington University
- WSU didn’t allow the possession of alcohol on campus
-Officer Daugherty, the WSU police department officer, asked for
Overdahl’s identification immediately as he saw the liquor
-Overdahl said he had to
Landmark Supreme Court Case: Washington V. Chrisman
11/29/9
Plaintiff: State of Washington
Defendant: Chrisman
Plaintiff’s Claim: The drugs that were collected in Chrisman’s dormitory
room was legally obtained and could be used as evidence.
Chief Lawyer for the Plaintiff: Ronald R Carpenter
Chief Lawyer for the Defendant: Robert F Patrick
Judges in Favor of the Court: Harry A. Blackmun, Sandra Day O’Connor,
Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens
Judges in Favor of the Defendant: William J Brennan, Jr., Thurgood
Marshall and Byron R. White
Place: Washington D.C
Date of Verdict: Janurary 13, 1982
Verdict:
-It’s verdict did overthrow the verdict of the Washington Court of Appeals
-The warrantless search of Chrisman’s dorm didn’t violate his Fourth
Amendment right
-Evidence collected at the scene was legally able to be used in the court
Significance:
- It’s an example of the court’s willingness to interpert the Fourth
Amendment involving drug use or exchange
-The court interpreted the plain view rule, for the offer it is a risk but after
the case it frees them from “reviewing courts” on the search and/or seizure
Call for Action:
- In the 1970’s-1980’s drug exchange and use rose to higher levels
-Common drug use with the youth by the late 1970’s
- Public opinion demanded some action be taken by the authorities to curb
the illegal drug trade
-Pressure was sent to the Supreme Court to interpret the Fourth Amendment
to help support officers when investigating drug cases
A Bad Time for a Party:
-ON January 1, 1978 Carl Overdahl was caught with liquor in plain view
leaving his dorm room at Washington University
- WSU didn’t allow the possession of alcohol on campus
-Officer Daugherty, the WSU police department officer, asked for
Overdahl’s identification immediately as he saw the liquor
-Overdahl said he had to