View the step-by-step solution to:

CASE LIBRARY FILE United States v. Banks, 124 S. 521 (12/02/2003). Police officers executing a search warrant for drugs went to Banks' apartment....

1.    From the list of Supreme Court decisions, the students will research and study. The students will choose five decisions by the Supreme Court.

a.    Explain why the Supreme Court case is important to current American society? 

2.    Identify the Constitutional Rights which are affected by the Supreme Court’s Decision.

a.    You will need to word this in the following manner: (This issue before the SupremeCourt is ……….)

3.    Identify and state what protection(s) (these are the Constitutional Rights discussed in the case).

a.    You will need to word this in the following manner: (The constitutional right(s) affected by this decision are ………..)

4.    Identify and explain in your own words why the constitutional rights discussed in the court case are important to American society.

a.    This part you will need to explain in 5 to 8sentences

5.    Interpret how the affected constitutional rights involved in your selected cases impact Law Enforcement in America.

a.    You will need to word this in the following manner: The Constitutional Right has the following impact/effect on LawEnforcement in America today.

I. CASE LIBRARY FILE United States v. Banks, 124 S.Ct. 521 (12/02/2003). Police ofcers executng a search warranT For drugs wenT To Banks’ aparTmenT. ±hey called ouT, “Police, search warranT,” rapped on The FronT door hard enough To be heard by ofcers aT The back door, waiTed For 15 To 20 seconds wiTh no response, and Then broke open The door. Banks was in The shower and heard noThing untl The crash oF The door. ±he NinTh CircuiT Found, using a Four-parT scheme For ve²ng knock-and-announce enTries, ruled ThaT The enTry had no exigenT circumsTances, making Forced enTry by desTructon oF properTy permissible only iF There was an expliciT reFusal oF admi³ance or a tme lapse greaTer Than The one here. ±he Supreme CourT disagreed. ±he CourT said, “Banks does noT, oF course, deny ThaT exigency may develop in The period beginning when ofcers wiTh a warranT knock To be admi³ed, and The issue comes down To wheTher iT was reasonable To suspecT imminenT loss oF evidence a´er The 15 To 20 seconds The ofcers waiTed prior To Forcing Their way. ±hough we agree. .. ThaT This call is a close one. .. we Think ThaT a´er 15 or 20 seconds wiThouT a response, police could Fairly suspecT ThaT cocaine would be gone iF They were retcenT any longer. .. ±he signiµcanT circumsTances include The arrival oF The police during The day, when anyone inside would probably have been up and around, and The sufciency oF 15 To 20 seconds For ge²ng To The baThroom or The kiTchen To sTarT ¶ushing cocaine down The drain. ±haT is, when circumsTances are exigenT because a pusher may be near The poinT oF pu²ng his drugs beyond reach, iT is imminenT disposal, noT Travel tme To The enTrance, ThaT governs when The police may reasonably enTer; since The baThroom and kiTchen are usually in The inTerior oF a dwelling, noT The FronT hall, There is no reason generally To peg The Travel tme To The locaton oF The door, and no reliable basis For giving The proprieTor oF a mansion a longer waiT Than The residenT oF a bungalow, or an aparTmenT like Banks’s. And 15 To 20 seconds does noT seem an unrealistc guess abouT The tme someone would need To geT in a positon To rid his quarTers oF cocaine. .. AbsenT exigency, The police musT knock and receive an acTual reFusal or waiT ouT The tme necessary To inFer one. BuT in a case like This, where The ofcers knocked and announced Their presence, and Forcibly enTered a´er a reasonable suspicion oF exigency had ripened, Their enTry satsµed §3109 as well as The ·ourTh AmendmenT, even wiThouT reFusal oF admi³ance.”
Background image of page 01
Illinois v. Lidster, 124 S.Ct. 885 (1/13/2004). To aid the inves±ga±on of a hit-and-run death, one week aFer the incident, at about the same ±me of night and at about the same place, local police set up a highway checkpoint designed to obtain more informa±on about the accident from the public. Police cars with ²ashing lights par±ally blocked the highway and forced tra³c to slow down, leading to lines of up to 15 cars in each lane. As each vehicle drew up to the checkpoint, an o³cer would stop it for 10 to 15 seconds, ask the occupants whether they had seen anything happen there the previous weekend, and hand each driver a ²yer. The ²yer said “ALERT … ´ATAL HIT & RUN ACCIDENT” and requested assistance in iden±fying the vehicle and driver involved in the accident that killed the 70-year old bicyclist. Lidster swerved his minivan as he approached the checkpoint, nearly hiµng one of the o³cers. The o³cer smelled alcohol on Lidster’s breath. He directed Lidster to a side street where another o³cer administered a sobriety test and then arrested Lidster. Lidster was tried and convicted in Illinois state court of driving under the in²uence of alcohol. Lidster challenged his arrest on the ground that his ini±al stop was in viola±on of the ´ourth Amendment because police lacked any par±cularized suspicion to pull Lidster over. The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court dis±nguished Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), where it held a drug checkpoint was uncons±tu±onal because it was an evidence seeking ac±vity by the police for criminal law enforcement. In contrast here, the roadblock’s “. .. primary law enforcement purpose was not to determine whether a vehicle’s occupants were commiµng a crime, but to ask vehicle occupants, as members of the public, for their help in providing informa±on about a crime in all likelihood commi¶ed by others. The police expected the informa±on elicited to help them apprehend, not the vehicle’s occupants, but other individuals. .. The importance of solici±ng the public’s assistance is o·set to some degree by the need to stop a motorist to obtain that help–a need less likely present where a pedestrian, not a motorist, is involved. The di·erence is signi¸cant in light of our determina±ons that such an involuntary stop amounts to a ‘seizure’ in ´ourth Amendment terms. .. That di·erence, however, is not important enough to jus±fy an Edmond-type rule here. AFer all, as we have said, the motorist stop will likely be brief. Any accompanying tra³c delay should prove no more onerous than many that typically accompany normal tra³c conges±on. And the resul±ng voluntary ques±oning of a motorist is as likely to prove important for police inves±ga±on as is the ques±oning of a pedestrian. Given these considera±ons, it would seem anomalous were the law (1) ordinarily to allow police freely to seek the voluntary coopera±on of pedestrians but (2) ordinarily to forbid police to seek similar voluntary coopera±on from motorists.”
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Top Answer

Here is the explanation for... View the full answer


a. The importance of the Supreme Court case, Yarborough v. Alvarado, 124 S.Ct. 2140
(06/01/2004) was important in setting regulations and laws on the interrogation of the suspects
by the police...

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.


Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online