Minnesota v. Carter525 U.S. 83 (1998)
This was a case against a man called Carter. It was a case that was argued and also decided in the year 1998 by the supreme court of Minnesota. The case involved a police officer finding out Carter together with John's activities that involved packaging of drugs, to be specific cocaine. The police officer found this out by peeping through a gap on the window of the apartment Carter, and John were at the time. They were arrested by the officer, charged and convicted with offenses involving drugs. However, a particular issue arose from this case by the fact that Carter claimed that the officer's search of the apartment was unreasonable and was against the fourth amendment (Slobogin, 2007). The respondents also tried to suppress the evidence on the basis of the violation by the police officer. The court of appeal held that the respondents were not entitled to the protection as by the fourth amendment because the evidence that was gathered from the apartment was an indication that indeed, the two used the premises for drug packaging and the observations that the police officer did were not under the fourth amendment. However, the Supreme Court reversed it and held that the respondents were entitled to protection under the fourth amendment and that the police officer’s search was unreasonable because the two expected privacy in the apartment (Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), 2014).
The reversal by the Supreme Court was rejected and this was because, for one to be protected by the amendment, one should personally demonstrate that he/she has a reasonable expectation of privacy of the premises that is being searched. As much as the fourth amendment protects people from evasion of privacy, the extent of protection depends greatly on where they are, and the nature of the activity being carried out in the premises. This case was important because it brought to light the importance of the fourth amendment in the protection of people’s privacy as well as shed light on the extent of protection. It has helped in showing the work of police officers in fighting crime as well as some of the factors hindering them from executing justice (Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), 2014).
Georgia v. Randolph547 US 103 (2006)
This case is one that involves the supreme court of Georgia against Scott Randolph. This case was decided in the year 2006. The case involved complaints made by Scott’s wife Janet about Scott, that involved her claiming that Scott had taken their child and also claimed the he had been using drugs. These claims resulted to the police searching the house through Janet’s permission, but Scott was present and refused to give the officers permission. The search was warrantless, and the officers found what appeared to be cocaine. After getting a search warrant, evidence was obtained from the house, and Scott was indicted for possessing cocaine (GEORGIA, PETITIONER v. SCOTT FITZ RANDOLPH, 2014).
The main issue about this case was the permission to enter the house for a search and more on the legitimacy of the consent from one of the occupier and disregarding the refusal by the other one yet present at the time. It also relates the incidence to the following of the fourth amendment. In this case the court of appeals of the state of Georgia reversed the ruling made by the trial court that Janet as an occupier had a right to give consent for a warrantless search of the house and this reversal was sustained by the supreme court of Georgia where it claimed that Janet’s consent was not valid because Scott had refused the search. It was against the fourth amendment which prohibits to a person’s house without a warrant (Slobogin, 2007). It was not a legitimate move by the officers to search the house without a warrant yet Scott was present and refused to give consent for the search. This case was important because it shows the limits to searches in terms of the importance of search warrants. It also brings out the aspect of importance of the fourth amendment in protecting people from searches. It also brings out the aspect of premises shared by two people and the authority associated with this form of sharing (GEORGIA, PETITIONER v. SCOTT FITZ RANDOLPH, 2014).
These two cases compare with each other in the sense of police authority to search and evade people’s privacy. Both cases explain situation involving police officers searching particular premises without search warrants and to what extent have these searches have been provided for by the law, specifically the fourth amendment. They show how the law protects individuals from evasion of privacy but also explain the extent of this protection that is important as it reduces the aspect of protecting criminals by using the law. The two cases also show the importance of police officers in fighting crime and executing justice in the society. The two cases also compare by the fact that they both involve the presence of drugs, specifically cocaine.
However, the two cases are contrasting by first of all the holdings by the different courts, for example, the court of appeal and the Supreme Court. The first case has the courts of appealing holding in rejecting the respondents standing which supported the officer’s search for which it considered reasonable, however, the Supreme Court reversed this ruling and held that the respondents did have standing in claiming protection from the fourth amendment because they expected privacy in the premises they were. On the other hand the second case has both the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court have similar standing over the case which was against the police officer’s searching the premises without a warrant and without consent of one of the occupier that was present.
References
GEORGIA, PETITIONER v. SCOTT FITZ RANDOLPH. (2014, September 28). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved September 28, 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1067.ZO.html
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998). (1998, October 6). Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998). Retrieved September 28, 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1147.ZS.html
Slobogin, C. (2007). Privacy at risk the new government surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
