“Maryland v. Pringle” Case Analysis

Excerpts from the Paper

"Maryland v. Pringle" Case Analysis
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution establishes the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of a person or property and further a warrant is required based upon probable cause executed by an independent magistrate. This doctrine has been repeatedly reaffirmed by numerous Supreme Court Challenges. Where original ten amendments were only applied to actions of the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment extended this prohibition to the state and local governments through the doctrine of incorporation. Several exceptions exist to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and violation of an individual’s constitutionally protected rights are generally remedied by the court...

.....ess or has taken place. The court grants latitude to review the totality of the circumstances when evaluating probable cause and notes that there is a line that can be crossed and courts need to be wary of unreasonable searches and the use of unfounded crimes as pretext to a search. The unanimous decision by the court shows that this was not a controversial case and there is little chance that it may someday be overturned.
Works Cited
Black, John Campbell. Black’s Law Dictionary (1979).
Maryland v. Pringle (2003) 540 U.S. 366 – Opinion. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-809P.ZO
Maryland v. Pringle (2003) 540 U.S. 366 – Syllabus. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-809P.ZS