must equal up to 1200 words with intext citation and 3 sources

1. In what way did Katz v. United States change Fourth Amendment law?

2. What are the basic requirements for obtaining a search warrant?

3. Tommy Transmitter planned to burglarize a local audio/video dealer. On the night he intended to commit the burglary, Tommy was observed standing in an alley behind the shop by a police officer. It was 11:50 P.M. on a June evening, and Tommy was wearing a pair of jeans, tennis shoes, and a shirt. 

After 5 minutes, the officer approached Tommy and asked him what he was doing in the alley at such a late hour. Tommy responded that he lived only a few blocks away, was suffering from insomnia, and had decided to take a walk. He produced identification that confirmed that he lived a short distance from the store. The officer then grabbed Tommy, swung him around, pushed him against the wall of the store, and "frisked him." After feeling a hard object in Tommy's back pocket, the officer reached in and discovered a small 3x3-inch container full of locksmith tools. He then arrested Tommy for possession of burglary tools and conducted a search incident to arrest. During that search, he discovered a diagram of the audio/video store hidden in Tommy's pants.  Tommy was subsequently charged with attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools. He has filed a motion to suppress the tools and diagram, as well as a motion to dismiss. Should the motions be granted? Discuss.

4. Stacey is a suspect in an embezzlement investigation. The police believe that she has hidden evidence in her neighbor's house, without the neighbor's consent. The neighbor will not consent to a search. Can the police obtain a search warrant for the non-suspect's home?

Reply to Josh 75 words listed below

I agree with the US Supreme Court's ruling and believe the officers did not meet the criteria to search Mr. Gant's car without a warrant. I also believe by doing so, the officers violated Mr. Gant's Fourth Amendment rights. Mr. Gant was arrested for an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. According to Oyez (n.d.), the Supreme Court held that an officer may search the passenger compartment of its recent occupant after an arrest as long as the reason for the search is directly related to the reason for the arrest, officer safety, or to preserve evidence. Since Mr. Gant was arrested for an outstanding warrant related to driving on a suspended license and not for a drug related offense, the search did not meet the criteria to search without a warrant. Therefore the search was unlawful. Not only do I agree with the US Supreme Court's ruling, I believe the reasons for this ruling are valid. While I do not condone illegal activities or behavior, I believe there should be rules and boundaries set in place to determine when an officer can or cannot search your vehicle. While reading about searches and seizures in our read section, I came across a statement that was written. It basically said, "A warrant acts as a magistrate between citizens and law enforcement. This is not done to shield criminals or turn the home into a safe haven for illegal activity, but to allow an objective mind to determine when it is ok to invade the privacy of the general public" (Hall, 2015). This statement is the epitome of how the Fourth Amendment protects our right of privacy.

Reply to Greg 75 words listed below

The Gant decision is one of the most influential cases regarding the Fourth Amendment in the past years. I remember this case changing the way in which officers conduct their day to day operations, as I was already employed and working as an officer for some time when the decision was rendered.

In some ways, I would have to say that I disagree with the Gant decision, but in others, I must say that I agree. If I was in the role of a defendant, I believe that the term search incident to arrest would be a broad statement and one that does not fit the test of reasonableness. Furthermore, if I was the defendant, did have other illegal contraband within my vehicle, the scope of the officer's interaction would be further limited by defining into better detail what steps had to be taken to search my vehicle. As a law enforcement officer, at the time of this decision, I felt that this case limited the scope of an investigation and allowed the continuation of criminal activity to go untreated by an officer. Having seen time and time again where cases originating from a traffic stop, per say, led to the arrest of an individual for a suspension or revocation and within the same vehicle was found narcotics and weapons.

The Arizona v. Gant decision was not one that I could fully understand overnight, but one that I have grown accustomed to. This case basically defined what could be searched and for what reason. Those reasons are that the officer identifies an actual or possible threat to their safety, a need to directly preserve evidence related to the crime committed by the defendant tampering with the evidence (LII, 2008). The Gant decision does not contradict the Terry v. Ohio decision as it relates to a vehicle that is being stopped by an officer and furtive gestures are displayed and does not contradict the Carroll doctrine as it covers the exigent circumstances clause (Justia, 2018). Since the decision, many agencies have established detailed policy on how to inventory a vehicle properly and separated the verbiage and documentation within the ranks of their officers that is communicated to the offender. That being the case, if evidence is found during a lawfully executed inventory of the vehicle, then said evidence could be admissible in court and the officer is still performing his or her duties to the fullest extent of the law.