Abigail Banuelos
CWI
Jan. 21, 2015 Per. 5 CBA­ Fourth Amendment Imagine a family in their living room watching tv or doing whatever at home and the swat team swoops in and starts yelling at the family to go on their knees, handcuffs the adults and searches the house without saying a word of why they are there. After the swat team is finished searching the families house they uncuff them and leave without saying anything
.
This situation will violate citizens’ individual rights and the fourth amendment by searching without a warrant. The federal government could easily violate the individual rights rather than promoting the common good by not getting a search warrant before conducting a legal search. In this case the Individual rights are being violated by 2 officers but is protecting the common good. The officers did protect the common good but could have gotten a search warrant to properly arrest Jeffers and it wouldn’t have violated his rights or the fourth amendment. The case of Jeffers v.
United States (1951) when two police officers entered the hotel Jeffers was staying at without a warrant and neither him or his aunt were present. The officers searched the place and found 19 bottles of cocaine and one bottle of codeine, he claimed the drugs were his and arrested him.
“In affirming the ruling of the Court of Appeals, Justice Clark held that the warrantless seizure did violate the Fourth Amendment and that the narcotics should have been excluded as evidence at Jeffers trial. Justice Clark wrote "The search and seizure were not incident to a valid arrest; and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify their being made without a warrant." ("Fourth Amendment
Summaries."
Cases Before 1960
. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2015.)

The two police officers violated Jeffers individual rights but protected the common good by finding the drugs before Jeffers would have sold of them to a person who can’t handle them and that person could’ve hurt someone in the community. In the case of Bailey v. United States (2013) officers were in search of a handgun that they believed was in the basement of an apartment. A detective watched
Bailey and another man leave the apartment, followed the men, stopped and searched them, detective found the keys to the apartment and took them to the apartment, a search team was already there when they arrived and had found the handgun with illicit drugs. Arrested the men and found out one of
Bailey’s keys opens the apartment.
“At trial, the District Court denied Bailey’s motion to suppress the apartment key and the statements he made to the detectives when stopped, holding that Bailey’s detention was justified under
Michigan
v.
Summers
, 452 U. S. 692, as a detention incident to the execution of a search warrant, and, in the alternative, that the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion under
Terry
v.
Ohio
, 392 U. S. 1.
Bailey was convicted. The Second Circuit affirmed denial of the suppression motion. Finding that
Summers authorized Bailey’s detention, it did not address the alternative
Terry holding.” ( (Slip.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (n.d.): n. pag.
Supreme Court
. Web. 21 Jan. 2015.) The individual rights were violated in this case just like in the case of Jeffers and in both cases it also protected the common good. In the next couple cases it violates the individual rights while the officers could be doing something for the common good instead of wasting their time on something worthless. The case of
Weeks v. United States (1914) when Weeks was away from home police officers used his hidden key to enter the home and searched the place without a warrant. While there they took his papers, books, letters and other items. The items they took were used to find weeks guilty of sending lottery tickets through the U.S mail.

“The judgment of the district court was reversed. The evidence