Academic Paper Grant vs Arizona

Arizona v. Grant Arizona v. Grant 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. New Ruling

The new ruling in Arizona v. grant adds modifications to the Fourth Amendment in regards to police searches. The changes state, “Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest” (Arizona v.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified

Proficient in: Common Law

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Grant 07-542. ) The U. S. Supreme Court ruled against the fact that officers can justify search a vehicle in traffic violations or any situation where no other evidence of crime had occurred.

Example of those would be: failure to appear, driving without a license, failing to pay child support. Arizona v. Grant allows checking for weapons within reach of the suspect, or anywhere reasonable within reach of the suspect. The main changes within Arizona v. Grant is police officer are no longer allowed to pull an individual over for a traffic violation, have the driver exit the vehicle, place them in hand cuff to be able to fully search a vehicle, which was commonly practiced by law enforcement agencies. Surveillance by Police

The Fourth Amendment protects U. S. citizens’ rights under the U. S. Constitution “to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. ” The U. S. Supreme Court looks at surveillance as a form of search and seizure and should require a person’s consent or a have warrant. However, the US Patriot Act, which was signed by Present George Bush in 2001 which states that The “Patriot Act,” allows law enforcement alone approve searches without oversight by the courts in, performed for national security matters.

In regards to Arizona v. Grant that if the traffic stop was at any thought was a national security threat that the vehicle could be searched without a judicial warrant under the Patriot Act. Surveillance by School Officials At one time people did not have to worry about the children while attending school, however with statists stating that 100,000 students a day bring guns to school and 160,000 students skip class a day because of fear or being harmed (Davis. ) Surveillance has been a key part of keeping students staff while attending school.

In Commonwealth v. Cass, 709 A. 2d 350, 357 (Pa. 1998), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently listed several reasons that justified the school official’s ‘heightened concern’ as to drug activity in the school. These factors include: * Information received from unnamed students; * Observations from teachers of suspicious activity by the students, such as passing small packages amongst themselves in the hallways; * increased use of the student assistance program for counseling students with drug problems; * Calls from concerned parents; Observation of a growing number of students carrying pagers; * Students in possession of large amounts of money; and, * Increased use of pay phones by students. ” The conditions might be a little inexplicit, however under any suspicion can lead to weapons and or controlled substance being retrieved. A random locker search should only happen under the circumstance that places the students at amendment risk. Which regard to surveillance with security cameras, law states that surveillance cameras cannot be placed were it invades person privacy, such as restrooms, or locker rooms. Surveillance by Security Personal

After 911, there have been many changes in the Fourth Amendment in regards to the Patriot Act as it allows law enforcement alone approve searches without oversight by the courts in, performed for national security matters. TSA has played an important role in private security in keeping passengers safe while flying, however due the new body scanners, people question if it violates their Fourth Amendment right. TSA is backed by the 9th Circuit Court of the United States, as it ruled in 1973 to search passengers in airports. This ruling suspends limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport security screening.

On the U. S. V. Davis (482 F. 2d 893,908) has a key piece of the wording which gives TSA the searching powers it states, ““noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft. (482 F. 2d 893,908)” In regard to Arizona V. Grant police have to have probable cause to search, however airport security does not have to follow those rules under U. S v.

Davis ruling. Conclusion April 21, 2009, changed the way police officers completed their search of a vehicle and the passenger compartment. After Arizona v. Grant, law enforcement must have probable cause that a crime has occurred or officers are completing a weapon sweep, that only the suspect could have reasonable reach too. When 911 occurred security in the United States changed. The Patriot Act was adopted and it allowed law enforcement alone approve searches without oversight by the courts in, performed for national security matters. U. S v.