Fourth Amendment Essay

In the American constitution the fourth amendment reads as follows; 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 personal privacy and every citizen’s right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their homes, businesses, and personal lives. However, when the fourth amendment was written by America’s founders, the world was a very different place with limited technology. The amendment does not specifically cover telephones or computers leaving the issue up to the courts. There have been recent articles about warrantless wiretapping in the name of national security against terrorism.

The Fourth Amendment has its roots in the heart of English common law. In 1604 in Seymane the English court recognized that no king had unlimited authority to enter into his subject’s home without invitation or a legal reason that had been followed by due course. Following this realization England faced an unprecedented rise in searches and seizures using general warrants. In the case of Entick v. Carrington the legal conclusion was reached that a search carried out in the name of the king was unlawful and lacked probable cause. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a “great judgment,” “one of the landmarks of English liberty,” “one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution,” and a guide to understanding what the Framers meant in writing the Constitution (Boyd v. United States, 1886).
In th...

... middle of paper ...

...his payphone were made with a justifiable expectation of privacy.
The issue for the Court was less the type of property at issue but more the expectation of the person.
“[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. … But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” In the end the Supreme Court held that Katz had a reasonable expectation that his calls would not be heard by anyone except the intended listener, and that the Fourth Amendment was violated. This case set forth a test of a reasonable expectation of privacy. There must be both a subjective expectation of privacy, and also that this expectation must be one that society would think is reasonable.