For Your Data Andresen V. Maryland Example Brief

Andresen v. Maryland  
U.S. Supreme Court, 1976

FACTS

-Fraudulent existent estate lawyer is suing the State for violating his 4^th Amendment rights when the warrant specifically stated which documents could hold upwards taken, although the terminal clause was extremely vague, as well as seemed all encompassing.
-Andresen, D, was existent estate attorney who was involved inwards fraudulent sale of property, namely Lot 13T. The officers had in all probability motility as well as obtained a warrant to search defendant's police line part as well as his company's office. The officers seized documents from the defendant's offices as well as these documents were used to convict the defendant. The accused appealed nether the quaternary Amendment.
-The warrant specifically stated what documents could hold upwards taken, although the terminal clause was extremely vague, as well as seemed all encompassing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-Court of appeals institute that the vague phrase to hold upwards specific enough, considered inwards the totality of the document.

ISSUE

-Whether the D’s 4^th amendment rights were violated when warrant specifically stated what documents could hold upwards taken, although the terminal clause was extremely vague, as well as seemed all encompassing.

HOLDING
-The D’s 4^th amendment rights were NOT violated when the warrant specifically stated what documents could hold upwards taken, although the terminal clause was extremely vague, as well as seemed all encompassing.

ANALYSIS
-The warrant had an exhaustive listing of things that could hold upwards seized, but a vague phrase, “together alongside known fruits of criminal offence at this fourth dimension unknown.”
- This is simply unclear but plainly refers to solely the Lot thirteen example when read inwards the totality of the document.

RULES 
General warrants are prohibited past times the 4^th Amendment.
-“Makes full general searches impossible as well as prevents the seizure of ane affair nether a warrant describing another.  Nothing is left to the discretion of the officeholder executing the warrant.

DISSENT
-“Nothing is left to the discretion of the officeholder executing the warrant.”
-The overwhelming quantity of seized fabric was either suppressed or returned to the ?. This shows an abusive search.

Groh v. Ramirez:
-Warrant had no specifics on it, but the application to the magistrate was real specific.
-Supreme courtroom held it was impermissible based on the 4^th amendment, but COULD cause got been permissible if it incorporated the affidavit past times reference.

Share this post