More handpicked essays just for you.
Why is the 4th Amendment important to criminal justice
Fourth amendment analysis
Relevant case of the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Over the last two decades, it seems the U.S Supreme Court has continued to narrow the scope of the Fourth Amendment. This presents hostility towards law enforcement while making the job of protecting and serving unsafe and challenging. However, here are two cases that the government argued favorably for law enforcement; and they are United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) and United States v. Flores-Lopez, 670 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.2012). The former, Robinson was stopped for a minor traffic violation, which subsequently led to his arrest. The officer searched Robinson incident to arrest and located a crumpled cigarette box containing heroin. The evidence was admitted and Robinson was convicted of the drug offense. The latter, Flores-Lopez
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
If the Supreme Court holds with the trend of the United States District Court of Oregon and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then the ultimate interpretation of the 4th Amendment will be precedent for future search and seizure cases involving technological monitoring. For this reason I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the Circuit Courts affirmation. The consequences for a reversal of the Circuit Courts decision are few. The 4th Amendment would still protect the rights of citizens. The negative aspect is that some drug dealers will go unnoticed. This is only a slight inconvenience given that thermal imaging may still be used if a warrant is obtained.
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "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.
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
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
It is 1776, the United States had just declared it’s Independence from England and one of those reasons for departing was the requirement to house British soldiers at anytime. After the French and Indian War England felt the need to thousands of soldiers in the colonies and an colonial quartering act was passed in 1765.When the British required the quartering of soldiers in the colonies it had passed in England that quartering of soldiers was not required. This quartering act on the colonies along with overtaxing lead to the start of the Revolution.Once the Americans won the war and had need to draft a constitution for the newly formed country, the exclusion of this requirement had to be added to the Bills of Rights.
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.
The 4th amendment of The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Henry David Thoreau once said, “That government is best which governs least," this statement is true because the more the government is involved, the more complicated life becomes for the people of the U.S. When government is too involved in something, it can soon becomes corrupt. The Safford Unified School District v. Redding was a case in 2009 where thirteen year old Savanna was suspected to have given prescription-strength ibuprofen to a friend in school, this resulted in the vice principal taking her backpack and searching for more pills. Nothing was found in Savanna’s backpack so she was sent by the vice principal to the nurse’s office to be stripped of all her clothes including her undergarments; again nothing was found. In this instance the school became overly involved for non-justifiable reasons which caused the situation to become corrupt. This is comparable to when the government and law enforcement is too involved in the citizen’s lives. It is of unjust law to search the American people without probable cause. The school strip searched Savanna illegally which
The Bill of Rights are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights works to provide constitutional protection for the individual and to limit government power. The First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment protects the individual by allowing religious and political freedom, and by promising a public and speedy trial. The Fourth Amendment protects the individual’s privacy and limits the reach of the government into people’s homes and personal belongings. The three essential Amendments from the Bill of Rights are: the First Amendment- Religious and Political freedom: the Fourth Amendment- Search and Seizure: and the Sixth Amendment-Criminal Court Procedures.
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule has undergone a harsh and controversial development. This article not only critically analyzes the numerous alternatives and slight modifications to the exclusionary rule but the advanced by courts and commentators as well, (Schroeder, 1361). The article also puts emphasis on the alternative route of police policy making and a means to control official misconduct and violations of citizens rights. The exclusionary rule is one of the most significant defense stance of the fourth amendment. ITs establishment has created a wide spread of protection against violations of citizens rights.
The Fourth Amendment states “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.” Despite this right, multiple minorities across the country suffer at the hands of police officers through racial profiling; the singling out of a person or persons as the main suspect of a crime based on their race. Many people have also suffered the loss of a loved one because police believed the suspect to be a threat based on their races therefore the officers use their authority to take out the “threat”. Although racial profiling may make sense to police officers in the line of duty, through the eyes of the public and those affected by police actions, it is a form a racism that is not being confronted and is allowing unjust convictions and deaths.
The way the police officer Martin McFadden had ignored the fourth amendment in order to catch John W. Terry & Chilton that was planning to rob a store and so the officer had stop and frisk the two suspect in which McFadden had found a concealed weapon which was a .38 caliber pistol and had two of the gun on them and so that they were charged by that ignoring the fourth amendment to find that the two were going to rob the place but also McFadden had frisked a person. Terry sentenced to 3 years, Chilton had served 13 months.