Amendment+4

=The Fourth Amendment- You can't search and seizure anything without a warrant. =
 * Synopsis:** Recent court cases in New York and Florida have brought the Fourth Amendment to the forefront. New York City subway riders are subject to a random search upon entering the subway system. Fans attending Tampa Bay Buccaneer football games (and any other National Football League game) are searched before entering the stadium. In both cases, lawsuits have been filed claiming that these searches ar [[image:fourthamendment_pic_of_bag.jpg width="166" height="166" align="right"]] e unconstitutional. Do these actions violate a person's right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Case B (California v. Greenwood) http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/greenwoo.htm The police, had had reason to believe that Billy Greenwood was dealing in illegal narcotics. They searched trash bags out on his curb and found items associated with drug use in them. The police applied for a search warrant. In their detailed descriptions they included what they found in the garbage. Because of the evidence from both the garbage can and the search, Greenwood was convicted of drug-related charges. He claimed to the Supreme Court that they had no warrant for the search of his garbage so it was illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that the garbage was public domain so and the evidence was admissible.

=Fourth Amendment Supreme Court Cases=

[|Terry V. Ohio (stop and frisk)] A police officer was on when patrol when he noticed something unusual. Three men were outside of a jewelry store pacing nervously, the officer suspected that a robbery was about to take place. So, acting on reasonable suspicion the officer approached the men. He identified himself and performed a pat-down of the suspects. Concealed and illegal weapons were discovered on the defendants Chilton and Terry. They were arrested and convicted, but they appealed that the pat-downs violated their fourth amendment rights of an unlawful search and seizure. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that the officer had "reasonable grounds" for suspecting the suspect of being armed and that the pat-down of the outer layer of the clothing was within the law and didn't violate their fourth amendment rights. Since he was acting on reasonable suspicion and was ensuring the safety of himself and others, the officer was right, and his actions didn't violate any rights of the defendants. In my opinion: nothing violated the defendants rights. Supreme Courts have ruled that 1. After contact is initiated with a suspect, the police may perform a pat-down for the search of a weapon for their safety and that of the public. 2. If you are patted-down, any sharp objects the officer detects may be removed from pockets and inspected. 3. You CAN be charged for possession of an illegal weapon through a lawful pat down. 4. If you don't want to be searched you must indicate so, therefore a pat-down can't occur legally. Otherwise everything is within the officers' rights to pat you down. 5. Pat-downs can't occur other than for conduction the search a of a concealed weapon. This means if the officer finds something that feels like drugs, he can't legally search you.