This paper discusses the contrast of two landmark United States (U.S.) Supreme Court cases that helped to clearly define how the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution is interpreted, and analyzes the difference between the “Constitution” and “Constitutional Law.” Two cases that are referenced in this analysis are (1) Katz v. United States, 386 U.S. 954 (U.S. March 13, 1967), and (2) Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (U.S. June 4, 1928), which differed in ruling; one eventually overturning the other. Finally, a conclusion is drawn as to the importance of these case decisions in the lives of Americans. Constitution v. Constitutional Law The Fourth (4th) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 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” (Kanovitz, 2010). Courts use a two-part test to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched (Kanovitz, 2010). First, did the person actually expect some degree of privacy? Second, is the person's expectation objectively reasonable, being one that society is willing to recognize? (Kanovitz, 2010). However, in order for the 4th Amendment to be enforced, the U.S. Supreme Court acted upon the powers warranted by Congress to protect and uphold the Constitution. The 4th Amendment does not clearly define exactly what an unreasonable search is thus, leaving the interpretation to the discretion of... ... middle of paper ... ...ible items from “unreasonable search and seizure.” This was a landmark decision that has since redefined, as well as clarified the intended meaning of the way the 4th Amendment is applied to civil liberties of today. References Kanovitz, J. R. (2010). Constitutional Law (12th ed.). (E. R. Ebben, Ed.) New Providence, NJ, U.S.A.: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., LexisNexis Gorup. Katz v. United States, 386 U.S. 954 (U.S. March 13, 1967). FindLaw http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=386&invol=954 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (U.S. June 4, 1928). Cornell University Law School; Legal Information Center; http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZS.html Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 p.353. (U.S. March 6, 1961). Justia.com; http://supreme.justia.com/us/365/505/case.html
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 27, Issue 2 (Fall 2011), pp. 347-360 Volokh, Eugene 27 Const. Comment. 347 (2010-2011)
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
John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, created legal precedence in the historical case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Throughout history he is portrayed as the fountainhead of judicial review. Marshall asserted the right of the judicial branch of government to void legislation it deemed unconstitutional, (Lemieux, 2003). In this essay, I will describe the factual circumstances and the Supreme Court holdings explaining the reasoning behind Chief Justice Marshall’s conclusions in the case, Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, I will evaluate whether the doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution and analysis the positive effects of the doctrine in American politics.
"UNITED STATES v. JONES." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 18 Nov. 2013 .
“The Fourth Amendment wasn't written for people with nothing to hide any more than the First Amendment was written for people with nothing to say.” (Dave Krueger). The Fourth Amendment protects the people's values, including the right of privacy. The Fourth Amendment includes, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated.” When the founding fathers created the Constitution they ensured the people fundamental laws that would be used to any issue portrayed in the Supreme Court. That gave the people a relief that no one is ever above the law that is created. The privacy of the people was a very big value enforced by warrants. In the case of the
TEXAS v. JOHNSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 25 January 2014.
The Bill of Rights is a document that stands as law in all 50 United States and protects the citizens of the U.S. from various unlawful punishments that would infringe on these rights which are considered universal to all those who legally reside in the country. These amendments are extremely important to us as citizens of the U.S. because they give us a set of guidelines to model our behavior and speech after, as well as allow us to defend ourselves from censorship of various forms that may be cast upon us by government, organizations, or other persons. Just as any law is destined to be tested, the laws set forth in The Bill of Rights have been tested through many court cases tried by the Supreme Court of the United States. These trials serve to clarify the meaning of the law in situations where it's intent is not immediately obvious. Here, we will analyze several court cases and their impact on society, as well as the sociological climate of the populace when these cases were tried.
A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1964) 40.
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
Harr, S. J., Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. H. (2012). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice
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.
Douglas, J. “Opinion of the Court.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Ed. D.
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...