The Fourth Amendment provides people with the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Courts have long recognized that the Forth Amendment protected individuals from unjustified police intrusions into one’s person, home, car, or other possessions, but few practical protection mechanisms existed. To preserve these constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court established standards by which police officers must abide. One such protection has been the probable cause — a belief that the person committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order to uphold an arrest or seizure, courts have required a probable cause combined with either a warrant or circumstances The exclusionary rule “enabled the judiciary to avoid the taint of partnership in official lawlessness,’’ and it “assured the people—all potential victims of unlawful government conduct—that the government would not profit from its lawless behavior, thus minimizing the risk of seriously undermining popular trust in government.” In Mapp v. Ohio, the Court extended the exclusionary rule to the states. In combination, these safeguards provided formidable protection of Forth Amendment rights. Soon thereafter, however, the Court began to loosen the restriction it had put in place. In Brinegar v. United States, the Court held that police officers do not need to always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search. The Court reasoned that “[b]ecause many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part.” However, the Court allowed only reasonable mistakes in order to avoid leaving “law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or
The 4th Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
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
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
On December 15, 1791 the Bill of Rights was ratified to limit the government 's power, but no one could have predicted how the world would change and how the amendments would be tested. Since the Bill of Rights was written the world has changed drastically. With advances in technology, that the founders of the constitution could have never predicted, many of the amendments are not applied in the same ways as they were when they were written. The Fourth Amendment in particular has changed very much. The modern forms of communication have tested the Fourth Amendment and the government 's responses. Since the Bill of Rights was ratified, there has been constant change in the world and therefore all the amendments have been tested and questioned.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides protection to the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule was a judicial precedence that made evidence obtained in violation of the US Constitution inadmissible in federal, state and local courts. Its primary focus being to discourage illegal or inappropriate law enforcement investigation practices. This ruling applies not only to evidence obtained directly from an illegal search or seizure, but also branches out to cover evidence indirectly obtained known as fruit of the poisonous tree. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine also referred to as the derivative evidence rule, prohibits submission of evidence that has been legally acquired through the
“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
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 Fourth Amendment provides protection against unlawful warrants, searches and/or seizures with insufficient evidence, and what will constitute the terms of a warrant. The Fourth Amendment is based on three main principles. The first principle is that the authorities must have sufficient evidence as to why they believe the desired piece of evidence would be located in the area. For example, if the authorities were in search of a murder weapon they must have sufficient forensic evidence that would provide enough support that the weapon would be located at the specific spot. The second principle is that when searching an individual’s private home the reason should be focused on evidence to support the search. For instance, if the cops were to search the home of an individual accused of a crime any types of writings or plans that may be present in the home may be confiscated if they are deemed necessary in support of the search. The final principle is that a blanket warrant must not be used as a method of bypassing the first two principles. For example, if the authorities could not solve what kind of weapon was used or where the evidence would be located they cannot have a warrant that covers any possible scenarios in a broad range. The original notion of the Fourth Amendment was to enforce the belief that “each man’s home is his castle”
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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
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.
One of the most important amendments in the United States Constitution and which is also part of the Bill of Rights is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people from being searched or arrested by police officers or any law enforcement without a reason. An officer may confront you and ask to search your house but if they don’t have a search warrant, they cannot legally pursue it without good reason and permission from a judge. Now what happens when a person is being arrested? Does the police or any law enforcement need a search warrant? The answer to that question would have to be no. This is where “Search incident to arrest” comes into play. Search incident to arrest (SITA), which could also be called the Chimel rule, is a
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.
The purpose for the Fourth Amendment is to protect people from intrusion of the government in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It prohibits searches and seizures unless they are conducted with probable cause and under reasonable circumstances. “The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment” (Criminal.Findlaw.com, 2013).