Closed Containers CJ 5 D

There are 3 parts to this assignment each part needs a small paragraph discussing about each assignment.)

Closed ContainersCJ 5 D


United States v. Ross (1982) is one of the top five cases in vehicle stops, searches, and inventories. In this case, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a legal warrantless search of an automobile allowed police to also search closed containers, specifically within the trunk of that vehicle. The Court ruled that the warrantless search of the containers found during the search of the care was constitutional and fell within the existing precedent of warrantless searches called the “automobile exception.”


Locate another case on point associated with vehicle stops and searches. In your main post, address the following:

·Summarize the material facts of the case you researched.

·Explain the applicable law the court relied on in reaching its decision in your selected case.

·Describe the legal requirements from your selected case that hold particular importance for police officers conducting a vehicle stop and search.

·Examine the potential impact of your selected case on the ethical behavior of police officers carrying out their assigned duties.


United States v. Ross, (80-2209) 456 US 798 (1982).

Search and Seizure in Open FieldsCJ 6 D


In Oliver v. United States (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Oliver did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his open fields even though he put up a gate and a no trespassing sign. Entry onto such fields was not covered by the 4th Amendment. There was precedent for open fields not having 4th Amendment protection because such fields were not specifically mentioned in the 4th Amendment (along with persons, houses, et cetera). Neither businesses nor open fields are mentioned in the 4th Amendment, but a place of business that is not open to the public is protected.


The 4th Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy even though such expectations are not mentioned in the language of the Amendment. For this discussion, choose and examine a precedential case that addresses open fields (other than Oliver).

In your main post:

·Articulate whether, based on the case you selected, posting a no trespassing sign creates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Include your rationale for your decision.

·Explain how your case selection relates to whether open fields are protected from search and seizure.

·Differentiate between the constitutional requirements for protected searches and unprotected searches as they relate to the duties of a criminal justice professional.

Thermal Imaging Device SearchesCJ 6 D


In Kyllo v. United States (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that use of a technological device to explore the details of a home that would previously have been unknown without physical intrusion is a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. The federal prosecutor argued that thermal imaging does not constitute a search because (1) “it detects only heat radiating from the external surface of the house” and therefore there was no entry, and (2) it did not detect private activities occurring in private areas because “everything that was detected was on the outside.”

The Court has ruled that plain view, plain odor, and plain touch are all constitutional. In Kyllo v. United States, the Court ruled the use of a thermal imaging device on a home was presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.


In your main post:

·Explain whether or not, as a criminal justice practitioner, you agree with the Court in Kyllo, and why. Include your rationale.

·Analyze whether heat radiating from a private home should be protected using an additional related case as support for your position.

·Differentiate the plain view, plain odor, and plain touch doctrines from the thermal imaging device in Kyllo with respect to search requirements.

·Explore whether you believe the results of the Kyllo case has had a positive or negative impact for law enforcement.