Identify The Constitutional Amendment That Would Gove 902768

Identify the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions

Officer Williams asked the neighborhood's regular trash collector to place the content of the defendant's garbage left on the curb into plastic bags and to turn over these bags at the end of the day. The trash collector complied with this request to prevent mixing of the garbage, and subsequently, Officer Williams' partner, Officer Martinez, searched through the collected trash. The officers found items indicating narcotics use, which led to a probable cause affidavit and the issuance of a search warrant for the defendant's residence. During the execution of the warrant, they discovered drugs and apprehended the defendant on felony narcotics charges.

The core constitutional principle governing these actions is the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be supported by probable cause and generally conduct searches with a warrant issued upon judicial determination of probable cause, except in specific circumstances where exceptions apply (U.S. Const., Amend. IV).

Analysis of the validity and constitutionality of the officers' actions

The first key issue involves whether the officers' collection and search of the defendant's trash violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that trash left outside the curtilage of a home is considered abandoned and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment. In California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), the Court ruled that trash placed at the curb for collection is subject to warrantless searches because individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in discarded items left in a publicly accessible area. Therefore, the request made by Officer Williams to the trash collector to place the defendant's garbage into bags and the subsequent search by Officers Williams and Martinez likely falls within the abandonment doctrine, rendering the search constitutional.

Furthermore, the officers’ actions of reciting the information obtained from the trash in support of an affidavit to secure a search warrant align with constitutional requirements, provided the affidavit established probable cause. The evidence obtained from the search of the trash provided likely probable cause for the subsequent search of the home, which was executed with a valid warrant. Under the exclusionary rule articulated in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be inadmissible in court; however, since the initial search was deemed reasonable under the abandonment doctrine and the warrant was appropriately obtained, the evidence recovered during the search of the residence would be admissible.

Assessment of whether the officers' actions were justified under doctrines such as plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches

The doctrine of plain view permits officers to seize evidence without a warrant if they are lawfully present and the evidence is immediately apparent as contraband or evidence of a crime. In this case, the officers' search of the trash was initiated with the consent of the trash collector, and the trash was placed in a location accessible to the public. Thus, the search aligns with the plain view doctrine, which does not require a warrant when the incriminating nature of the items is immediately apparent (Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 2011).

The abandonment doctrine justifies the trash search, as discussed earlier, since the defendant voluntarily left the garbage outside for collection, relinquishing any reasonable expectation of privacy. The open fields doctrine, established in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), allows warrantless searches of open fields, but this doctrine is less relevant here as the trash was within an accessible area intended for collection, not an open field.

Likewise, the border search exception does not apply here, as the search occurred within the domestic setting and not at a border or border crossing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the actions of Officers Williams and Martinez are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment, primarily relying on the abandonment doctrine applicable to trash left outside of the home for collection. Their search and subsequent warrant application were justified and supported by probable cause obtained from the trash. The search was conducted within established legal doctrines, specifically the abandonment and plain view exceptions, making their actions consistent with constitutional standards.

References

• California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011).
• Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924).
• Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018).
• Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).
• United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012).
• Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
• Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).