No one should be searched without a good reason and warrant. People should have the right of privacy- it is important to them. It is ethical for police to have search warrants before searching a person’s personal belongings. There have been recent conflicts on police powers over the pass years. Police are disobeying the fourth amendment by searching illegally. Critics frown upon police, while supporters agree with the police. Being searched without a permit is unconstitutional, and police could take advantage of their power, and abuse it. It makes US citizens feel less secure and safe. Citizens need to be guaranteed rights as long as they behave. Neighborhoods do not benefit because if the police seize this power of going into a person’s belongings without a permit, then they would use their powers to see what kind of person they are, or finding out on people’s personal business. In general, police will not respect the privacy of the person and his belongings. Therefore, no one should be searched without an extremely good reason and a warrant. Unreasonable searches are unethical. There are many people involved in this issue. They are the police force, the media, the communities, teens and families, victims and families, and the justice system. Neighbors need to feel safe and controlled, and everybody needs to feel equal. “Liberty is freedom from arbitrary or government” (http://dictionary.com/), and the Fourth amendment assures that we have the freedom of privacy from the United States government. The Bill of Rights is ten rights that could not be taken away from people. The court Case Board of Education V. Earls (12/26/01) deals with the 4th amendment. Earl’s is a student at a school that requires students to h... ... middle of paper ... ...Citizens need to be guaranteed rights as long as they behave. The 4th amendment shows that each and every citizen has privacy rights, and that a search without a permit is illegal. Citizens of the United States of America should not be searched without enough evidence and a permit. Works Cited "The Oyez Project, Board of Education v. Earls , 536 U.S. 822 (2002) ." OYEZ- U.S Supreme Court Media. N.p., 2002. Web. 31 Mar 2015. . "United States V. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48 (1951)." FindLaw|Cases and Codes. N.p., 13, November, 1951. Web. 31 Mar 2015. .
"Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26, ET AL. v. Pico, By His Next
The impact left in this case, Jackson vs. Board of Education (2005), has been an issue that?s gone on for decades. It is a more recent encounter that shows it still exists in modern day. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) and Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) these cases both enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 such as Jackson vs. Board of Education (2005). Rights to equal protection began in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). This case left a huge impact on equal rights against sexual discrimination, discussing the importance of the 14th
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated.
The Fourth (IV) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (U.S Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Legal Information Institute). The fourth amendment is a delicate subject and there is a fine line between the fourth amendment and 'unreasonable search and seizure. '
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
It has been a controversial topic for many years since s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enabled when the Charter came into effect in 1982. When or if a police officer were to come up to you under suspicion that you have something illegal or detrimental in your backpack they are not allowed to search or seize anything without a warrant. There are pros and cons to this topic because under section 7 everyone has the right to life, liberty and security so in a negative light if citizens feel unsafe because a person is suspicious and putting others in danger the police are not allowed to interfere without a warrant to make sure that evidence does not become void in a court case, if it arises to that. In a positive light if someone calls 911 and they are in trouble and the police are able to get a warrant on time to help then it would save lives and make society a more secure environment. There has been various cases where spatial privacy has been abused different ways: telephone, Internet, and etc. At this point many may agree that the law itself (Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom) may need to be updated in terms of specifying when it’s needed for a warrant and when it’s not as technology has also been updated since the Constitution was made in 1982. Society’s view may change after cases like R v. Tse, as police can yet invade ones privacy constitutionally or not it may also
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
Do the First and Fourth Amendments Protect?" Current Issues & Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument with Readings. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin's, 1999. 316-324.
The National Center For Public Research. “Brown v Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+).” Supreme Court of The United States. 1982 .
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Society has the right to be protected from all criminal behavior, ever since the constitution was first created society has had this right, but the means used to restrict and control this criminal activity must be lawful and constitutional. No matter the hassle or strife, no one should be jailed without protection of their basic rights. Our right to keep people out of our homes and be left alone by the government is a precious freedom. This is the role of the fourth amendment. It states, “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things being seized.”