Search and Seizure

Topic One “squeezing luggage in a bus”.

The significance of this case is the Court found that an individual’s luggage, depending on the environment in which the luggage is located and the type of luggage being used is in fact, protected by the fourth Amendment. The Courts reasoning for this was based upon Bonds expectation of privacy due to his using a concealed bag and placing that bag within his reach. Furthermore, the Court stated as a result of this privacy in which society would consider reasonable, law enforcement officials do not have the right to physically manipulate one’s luggage or bag by squeezing without a warrant or probable cause, but rather may only visually inspect one’s luggage. Another significance to this case is the Court stated the physical manipulation used to inspect one’s luggage is far more intrusive then a visual inspection.

I believe this case falls under the “search” category. Moreover, in my opinion the physical manipulation without the opening of the luggage should not be protected by the fourth Amendment. When an officer believes an individual during a Stop maybe carrying something that could bring forth imminent danger to themselves or others, the officer has the right to Stop, Question, and then frisk. The officer in this case was suspicious of the bag so he questioned Bond, while feeling the bag but not opening it. The officer once feeling a hard object asked bond if he could search the bag and Bond agreed. If this was a Pat Frisk, the officer could have removed the hard object from ones persons without consent as a result of the object being felt was hard like a weapon. I believe all evidence should be admissible in court and not protected by the fourth amendment.

Topic Two “Searches and Seizures of Private Persons”.

The significance of this case is that the Court stated any individual who is non law enforcement cannot violate an others fourth amendment right of protection from illegal search and seizure. Furthermore, any evidence obtained by a civilian is in fact, admissible in court as long as the evidence obtained was not done so with the assistance of a law enforcement officer, the civilian conducted the search and seizure was not pressured or offered some sort of reward, and the idea was not comprised by a law enforcement officer but by the individual themselves. An important protection I agree upon, allows the individuals whose fourth protection was violated the ability to file a criminal suit against the civilian who conducted the search and seizure and obtained evidence. This in return, helps alleviate the possibility of civilians taking taken actions into their own hands or possible bribes from police officers in order to obtain evidence due to the legal retaliation that can occur by the other party. I do not agree with the Court that an individual’s fourth Amendment can only be violated by law enforcement and state this case to be a search and seizure issue.

Topic Three “Use of Police Dogs for Detection of Drugs”.

With topic three the significance is where the Court states the use of a police dog for the sole purpose of detecting drugs does not constitute a search; therefore individual’s fourth amendment right to protection of illegal search and seizure is not protected as long as the police have legal right to be on the premises. Additionally, the Court states no search warrant or probable cause is needed with the use of a police dog due to the courts belief that a dog cannot physically intrude one’s materials, the intrusion on the individuals privacy is considered inoffensive, dogs are incapable of discriminating against an individual, the intrusion targets objects not individuals, and the use of a dog is not as sophisticated as with the use of contemporary technological devices.

I must disagree with the Court’s findings as I have watched many reality crime scene investigation shows, documentaries, and training of K9 for search and rescues of persons and narcotics. The use of a K9 depending can be just as good if not better at times then most of the technology available for law enforcement. K9 dogs are highly intelligent, and must pass at a rate of drug detection in the mid to high 90%. Law enforcement departments spend thousands of dollars on the purchase and training of these K9 dogs for the sole purpose to detect narcotic; therefore, these dogs are just as sophisticated and reliable as most technology today. I believe if a K9 is going to be used, then probable cause or a warrant should exist.