1
Chapter 8
Criminal Law and Cybercrime
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
8.1 Search and Seizure
No. The police officers’ use of the global positioning system (GPS) without first obtaining a search
warrant does not constitute an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth
Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. The U.S. Supreme Court has created a
presumption that a warrant is required to conduct a search. However, a warrant is not required under
8.2 Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Yes, Alabama’s mandatory sentencing requirement of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
as applied to juvenile defendants constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fifth
Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held that a mandatory life sentence as applied to a juvenile
prevents the sentencer from taking into account a juvenile defendant’s youth as a consideration at
sentencing. The Supreme Court noted that juveniles have a greater capacity for reform than adults. The
8.3 Search
Yes, the warrantless search is constitutional. Although in the majority of cases a warrant is necessary to
evidence used against King. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained by the warrantless search
could be used against King at his criminal trial. Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 2011 U.S. Lexis 3541
(Supreme Court of the United States, 2011)
8.4 Search
2
cause to search Harris’s truck. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in
a controlled setting, a court can presume that the dog’s alert provides probable cause to search. The
(Supreme Court of the United States, 2013)
8.5 Search and Seizure
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a
question we confront today is what limits there are upon this power of technology to shrink the realm of
guaranteed privacy.” The Supreme Court found that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any
information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without
physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search. This ruling assures
States, 2001)
8.6 Search and Seizure
Yes, the Indianapolis highway checkpoint program violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. In the highway checkpoint in this case the police, without individualized suspicion, stopped
course, certain circumstances might justify a law enforcement checkpoint where the primary purpose
would be necessary for some emergency. For example, the Fourth Amendment would permit an
appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous
criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route. But barring such emergencies—which did not
States, 2000)
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
8.7 Ethics Case
3
comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals.” At the Fourth Amendment’s very core
stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental
to assert the Fourth Amendment to suppress evidence when he knows he is guilty of the crime charged is
a close one. Literally, the answer would be no, because the defendant knows that he is getting away with a
crime. However, the privilege to be free from unreasonable searches was placed in the Constitution for a
very important reason. So in reality, it could be said that the government is acting unethically when it tries
(Supreme Court of the United States, 2013)
8.8 Ethics Case
No, the search of Rodney Gant’s car was not a reasonable search. A search of a car incidence to an arrest
is permissible and the evidence obtained may be admitted into evidence. The issue was whether the
which he was arrested might have been found therein, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the search was
unreasonable and that the evidence found in Gant’s automobile must be suppressed. The Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects persons from unreasonable searches. This is a right granted
by the highest law of the land. It could be argued that Gant acted unethically by trying to get evidence of
3120 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2009)