4th Amendment Case Study

Whether our new client, Mr. Jonathan Blake, can use the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for his defense.

On Sunday, February 6, 2011, our client, Mr. Jonathan Blake, attended the Smith’s house located at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015. Mr. Blake and two other guests were at home to watch the Super Bowl. Metropolitan police officers responded to a call from a neighbor in regards to a noise complaint. When officers arrived on the scene, they observed Mr. Blake and his friends smoking marijuana through the large window in the living room, as well as Mr. Blake hand a baggie of white powder to someone. When the officers knocked on the door, Mr. Smith allowed them to come in. Once the officers came in, they informed Mr. Blake …show more content…
Blake cannot claim that the police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment does protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, this is not the case for Mr. Blake. Mr. Blake went to Mr. Smith’s home to watch the Super Bowl party on February 6, 2011. Police officers had probable cause when they saw suspected illegal activity was occurring in Mr. Smith’s home, and when they had knocked on the door, Mr. Smith permitted them to enter his home. Once inside the house, the officers saw a shotgun sandwiched in between the couch, and this gave them probable cause to search all persons and the Smith’s home. Because the police officers had probable cause and Mr. Smith’s permission, they did not need the warrant to search all persons and the household. In Mapp v. Ohio, the situation was different. The court stated that there was a reasonable argument for Miss Mapp to claim a violation of her Fourth Amendment right “because the ‘methods’ employed to obtain the [evidence] … were such as to ‘offend “a sense of justice.”’” Officers entered her home without a warrant, without Miss Mapp’s permission to enter her home, and without probable cause, which leads all the evidence obtained in the unreasonable search inadmissible. In Minnesota v. Carter, the defendant claimed that James Thielen, a police officer, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that no such violation occurred. The court held that to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, and a defendant must demonstrate that he has an expectation of privacy in the place searched and that his expectation is reasonable. In Mr. Blake’s case, he cannot prove this because he was watching the Super Bowl in Mr. Smith’s house, and the house is a dwelling place for Mr. Smith and his wife, not for Mr. Blake. There is no evidence to support that Mr. Blake had an expectation of privacy in Mr. Smith’s home since he was a guest to watch the Super Bowl, which

Show More