Closed Containers CJ 5 D

There are 3 parts to this assignment each part needs a small
paragraph discussing about each assignment.)

Closed ContainersCJ 5 D

Introduction

United States v. Ross (1982) is one of the top
five cases in vehicle stops, searches, and inventories. In this case, the
Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a legal warrantless search of
an automobile allowed police to also search closed containers, specifically within
the trunk of that vehicle. The Court ruled that the warrantless search of the
containers found during the search of the care was constitutional and fell
within the existing precedent of warrantless searches called the
“automobile exception.”

Instructions

Locate another case on point associated with vehicle stops and
searches. In your main post, address the following:

·Summarize the material facts of the case you researched.

·Explain the applicable law the court relied on in reaching its
decision in your selected case.

·Describe the legal requirements from your selected case that
hold particular importance for police officers conducting a vehicle stop and
search.

·Examine the potential impact of your selected case on the
ethical behavior of police officers carrying out their assigned duties.

Reference

United States v. Ross, (80-2209) 456 US 798
(1982).

Search and Seizure in Open FieldsCJ 6 D

Introduction

In Oliver v. United States (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court
held that Oliver did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his open
fields even though he put up a gate and a no trespassing sign. Entry
onto such fields was not covered by the 4th Amendment. There was precedent for
open fields not having 4th Amendment protection because such fields were not
specifically mentioned in the 4th Amendment (along with persons, houses,
et cetera). Neither businesses nor open fields are mentioned in the 4th
Amendment, but a place of business that is not open to the public is protected.

Instructions

The 4th Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy
even though such expectations are not mentioned in the language of the
Amendment. For this discussion, choose and examine a precedential case that
addresses open fields (other than Oliver).

In your main post:

·Articulate whether, based on the case you selected, posting a no
trespassing sign creates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Include your
rationale for your decision.

·Explain how your case selection relates to whether open fields
are protected from search and seizure.

·Differentiate between the constitutional requirements for
protected searches and unprotected searches as they relate to the duties of a
criminal justice professional.

Thermal Imaging Device SearchesCJ 6 D

Introduction

In Kyllo v. United States (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court
held that use of a technological device to explore the details of a home that
would previously have been unknown without physical intrusion is a search and
is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. The federal prosecutor argued
that thermal imaging does not constitute a search because (1) “it detects
only heat radiating from the external surface of the house” and therefore
there was no entry, and (2) it did not detect private activities occurring in
private areas because “everything that was detected was on the
outside.”

The Court has ruled that plain view, plain odor, and plain touch
are all constitutional. In Kyllo v. United States, the Court ruled the
use of a thermal imaging device on a home was presumptively unreasonable
without a warrant.

Instructions

In your main post:

·Explain whether or not, as a criminal justice practitioner, you
agree with the Court in Kyllo, and why. Include your rationale.

·Analyze whether heat radiating from a private home should be
protected using an additional related case as support for your position.

·Differentiate the plain view, plain odor, and plain touch
doctrines from the thermal imaging device in Kyllo with respect to
search requirements.

·Explore whether you believe the results of the Kyllo case
has had a positive or negative impact for law enforcement.