Case Study 2
The structure correction that would oversee officer Jones engagements would be the fourth amendment. This is because it protects people and not places and it is usually applicable in places outside homes (Vishny 2012). This amendment can be applied anytime a person has a judicious prospect of privacy in a certain location regardless of whether or not it is that individual’s home. Thus it is through the administering of this amendment, that Officer Jones actions will be determined (Putman 2010).
According to the constitutions’ fourth amendment, there is no anticipation for any item that is abandoned and any police officer is allowed by law to seize as well as search the items freely (Vishny 2012). Trash that is placed in a curb is regarded as abandoned and for the purpose of the fourth amendment, it is open for examined by any person. Therefore officer jones actions were valid according to the fourth amendment that is the constitution and the fact that the trash was already abandoned means that officer jones had a right to examine the property. Permission was not needed for Jones’ deeds and there was no anticipation of a right of secrecy since none of the open-field and the abandonment examination.
Police Officer Jones deeds were acceptable in the abandonment policy. The abandonment policy can be concluded since the perpetrator purposefully and perpetually uninhibited his assets through giving it away and retaining it outside sideways of curb so as to be picked up by garbage firm consequently permitting Jones to have the lawful right to examine his assets which he had thrown away without a search warrant.
Reference
Vishny D. (2012). Still the American Frontier: Forth Amendment Litigation.retyrieved from:
Putman, W. H. (2010). Legal research, analysis, and writing. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.
