The following timeline presents court of appeals’ cases that changed how law enforcement searches and seizures.
Ker v. California (1963)
George Douglas and his wife were convicted of possession of marijuana in California. Officers had searched Their apartment without consent or warrant. They also found more marijuana in Ker's car. The marijuana was used as evidence against George Douglas and Diane Ker. The California District Court of Appeals held that the entry to Ker’s apartment was for arrest, and therefore, the search and seizure were not unlawful (Ker v. California, 1963). The ruling indicates that warrant is not necessary when the main aim is to prevent the destruction of evidence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
In 1963, John W. Terry was patted down by Officer after he was suspected of planning to rob. After pat-down, it was found that he was carrying a pistol. At the trial, Terry’s lawyer argued that the evidence should be suppressed since the rights of his client were violated. The court turned down the motion, and Terry was convicted on the basis that there was reasonable suspicion. Terry appealed to the Ohio District Court of Appeals, but his conviction affirmed. The affirmation indicated that the exclusionary rule has its limitations and that pat-down search does not violate the Fourth Amendment if there is reasonable suspicion (Terry v. Ohio, 1968).
United States v. Ibarra (1991)
The respondent had given police permission to search his car after he was stopped for a vehicle operation violation. Police found nothing but impounded the car because the responded lacked the operator's license. Police found cocaine later after doing a second search. Consequently, the respondent filed a pretrial motion to ensure that the evidence was not used. In response, the Government contested that the search was done according to respondents continuing consent. The court ruled in respondent’s favor (United States v. Ibarra, 1991). The court of appeals dismissed the appeal of the Government. The Government was forced to abandon the consent theory. This ruling required law enforcement to obtain substantial consent from suspects before conducting searches and seizures.
State v. Toone (1994)
Thomas Edwin Toone, Appellee was indicted for possession of cocaine. The trial court ruled in favor of Toone. The ruling was on the ground that his Fourth Amendment. The State of Texas appealed the ruling in the Fifth Court of Appeals. Toone had moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that there was no probable cause for a search. The trial court agreed with Toone, but the court of appeals reversed the ruling. The court of appeals argued that there was probable cause to believe that drugs would be in Toone’s house (State v. Toone, 1994). This ruling affirmed that the existence of a probable cause is enough to overturn an individual's Fourth Amendment rights.
United States v. Ickes (2005)
Ickes was entering the United States when customs agents demanded to search his car. They found images of child pornography on his computer and photo albums. He convicted of promoting child pornography. Ickes appealed, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Court of appeals asserted that the search of Ickes's vehicle was permissible (United States v. Ickes, Jr., 2019). By affirming Ickes's conviction, the court of appeals asserted that the Fourth Amendment could not prevent the custom border officers searching individuals’ belongings.
United States v. Arnold (2008)
On July 17, 2005, Michael Arnold was subjected to secondary questioning by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officer. It was found that Arnold was engaging in child pornography. His computer was seized, and later, he was charged with engaging in child pornography. He filed appealed to make evidence inadmissible, and the District Court granted the motion (United States v. Arnold, 2008). The Government appealed the case, and the court of appeals overturned the District Court's ruling. The ruling was based on the argument that the 4 th Amendment does not require custom officials to have reasonable suspicion before searching and seizure of digital devices and computers at the international border.
Arizona v. Johnson (2009)
Lemon Johnson was subjected to pat-down search after a vehicle he was in as a passenger stopped. Police officers found that Johnson had a gun. Johnson appealed the trial, arguing that the search violated his rights. Arizona Court of Appeals argued that the pat-down of Johnson violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Hence the conviction was reversed (Arizona v. Johnson, 2009). The ruling by the Arizona Court of Appeals asserted Terry v. Ohio ruling, which requires that an officer should have a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is dangerous or criminal.
United States v. Cotterman (2013)
Haward Cotterman had his laptop impounded and used for forensic examination at the border while entering the United States from Mexico. Cotterman appealed so that the evidence seized by customs officials could be considered objectionable. The District Court ruled in favor of Cotterman. The Government responded by appealing, arguing that the border search exception allows search and seizures at an international border without probable cause or warrant. The court of appeals overturned the ruling of the lower court in the Government's favor. However, the court of appeals ruling weakened the border search exception of the 4 th Amendment by holding that forensic examination of impounded property cannot be done if there is no reason for suspicion (United States v. Cotterman, 2013).
References
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 US 64 (The Arizona Court of Appeals 2009).
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 24 (California District Court of Appeal 1963).
United States v. Arnold, 533 F.3d 1003 (The Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Tenth Appellate District 2008).
State v. Toone, 872 S.W.2d 750 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1994).
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Ohio District Court of Appeals 1968).
United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2013).
United States v. Ibarra, 502 U. S. 6 (The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit 1991).
United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. 2019).
