Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
U.S bill of rights
U.S bill of rights
Questions on the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: U.S bill of rights
In the United States Constitution, there are ten amendments called the Bill of Rights. These rights are the detailed descriptions of basic rights that each person in this country is entitled to have as a citizen. Of these, the Fourth Amendment requires that proof or probable cause to be presented to a judge in order to gain permission to perform any search and seizures of property. If proper procedure is not followed by officers, evidence can be ruled by a judge as inadmissible in a court of law.
Exclusionary rule is when evidence is gathered in a manner which is not legal or by violating a person’s rights and is therefore deemed illegitimate to be used in criminal court. Highly condemning evidence can be left out of a criminal proceeding
The Constitution lays out the rights and obligations of the newly formed United States government. But, what of the rights and obligations of its citizens? Starting in 1791 only two years after the Constitution was ratified the Constitution began to evolve and this process continues to this day. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. This Bill of Rights outlines the protections which citizens have from the government of the United States. The question raised in the title of this paper is; Are the Bill of Rights, written well over 200 years ago still relevant today? Of course they are and probably even more so. To illustrate this fact we will examine each of the ten amendments rewrite each one using common everyday language of today and if possible discuss why this was important in 1791 and why we may or may not need this document in writing today. In restating each amendment I will try to write it as if it is a brand new document, which is a stretch to say the least. With out the struggle of the colonies through war and abuse by the English Monarchy would one have the foresight to see how a government may take for granted the rights of its citizenry?
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These rights apply to the citizens of our great country. The Fourth Amendment covers search laws and has a significant impact on law enforcement procedures. If these procedural rights are not followed, there can be devastating consequences to the outcome of a case.
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
" Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'. The Fifth Amendment in its Self Incrimination Clause.
(Legal dictionary, 2015). Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule. “ Good faith exception – this exception allowing evidence obtained by law enforcement or police officers who rely on a search warrant they believe to be valid to be admitted at a trial. “ (Exclusionary rule, 2015) “ Attenuation Doctrine – an exception permitting evidence improperly obtained to be admitted at trial if the connection between the evidence and the illegal means by which it was obtained is very remote “. (Exclusionary Rule, 2015) The next exception of the exclusionary rule is the “ Independent Source Doctrine, this is an exception permitting evidence obtained illegally too be admitted at trial if the evidence was later obtained by an independent person through legal activities. (Exclusionary Rule, 2015).
The G.I. Bill of Rights The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 fundamentally changed the composition of the American workforce by enabling an unprecedented number of American veterans to attend college and trade schools. Signed into law on June 22, 1944, the G. I. Bill of Rights, as it came to be known, granted stipends covering tuition and living expenses, provided vocational rehabilitation, established veterans' hospitals and made low-interest mortgages available for veterans of WWII. The legislation was eventually expanded to include all who served in the armed forces, even in peacetime, under the Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966. The significance of the G.I. Bill to the social and economic development of the United States cannot be overstated. Once a bastion of upper-class intellectuals, university education was now opened up to people from every income level.
There are three fundamentals of the exclusionary rule. Foremost, an illegal action by an officer of police or an agent of police. Subsequently, evidence of this action by the police and agents of police must be obtained. The last element stipulates that there must be a link between the evidence acquired and the unauthorized action. In case a link cannot be established between the evidence and the illegal action committed in the acquisition of the evidence, then by the doctrine of attenuation, the evidence falls outside the exclusionary rule.
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.
When the Second Constitutional Convention wrote the Constitution in 1787, there was a controversy between the federalists and the anti-federalists surrounding whether or not to have a Bill of Rights. The anti-federalists claimed that a bill of rights was needed that listed the guaranteed rights that the government could never take away from a person i.e. “inalienable rights.” A Bill of Rights was eventually deemed necessary, and has worked for over 210 years. There are many reasons why the ten amendments are still valid to this day, and the best examples are the First Amendment, concerning the freedom of religion, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment.
Declared in the U.S. Constitution every American or should it be person, is guaranteed civil rights. Civil rights did not just consist of “freedom of speech and assembly,” but as well as “the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, and procedural guarantees in criminal and civil rights,” (Dawood). It was not until 1791, that the Bill of Rights was appended to the constitution, which helped clarify these rights to citizens. “Rights were eventually applied against actions of the state governments in a series of cases decide by the Supreme Court,” Dawood stated. In previous years (1790-1803), the Supreme Court had little say in decisions being made by government. As time went on the Supreme Court took on more responsibility and started making additional decisions, which in time helped minorities gain their civil rights. It took a couple of years, as a matter of fact till the 1900’s for the Supreme Court to get out of the “ideology of white supremacy and the practice of racism,” (Smith). Though the decisions of the Supreme Court were not all that appreciated in the beginning, following the 20th century the court really facilitated in the advancements of civil rights.
The exclusionary rule excludes any evidence that has been improperly or illegally seized. “The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter and discourage police violations of constitutional rights, as well as the violation of statutory rights of defendants, and the violations of court rules. The goal of the exclusionary rule is to deter the improper police, which in theory benefits all citizens, but in most cases the direct beneficiary of the rule is someone who would be convicted if the evidence were not excluded.”
The Weeks decision was the birth of a new legal doctrine titled ‘The Exclusionary Rule.’ The Exclusionary rule is defined as is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes admissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law.
The Exclusionary Rule was finally applied by the United States Supreme Court to the states in Mapp v. Ohio in 1961. This purpose of this rule is to prevent law enforcement from performing any unlawful searches and seizures. This rule states that any and all evidence collected illegally cannot be used as evidence against defendants in court. This rule also states that any evidence collected as an indirect result of illegally obtained evidence would not be admissible in court. This is also known as “the fruit of the poisonous tree.”
The exclusionary rule is when police collect evidence that is related to a crime illegally, or against the defendant’s constitutional rights by unreasonable search and seizure. Such evidence is inadmissible in court. It is still inadmissible even if the seized evidence happens to be highly incriminating, such as a murder weapon (Dempsey, Forst, & Carter, 2016, p. 403).