Revisiting Regulation Changing Cases

1063 Words5 Pages
Throughout history, there have been numerous litigations that pertain to an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights; however, there are three proceedings that changed the way law enforcement is able to search and seize properties in order for it to be admissible in court. The outcomes of Weeks v. United States, Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc. v. United States, and Mapp v. Ohio created regulations that gave the American citizens back their Fourth Amendment rights. Before these three lawsuits were tried by the courts, materials seized without a search warrant could be admissible in court. The police felt that a warrant was not necessary for a conviction and the courts found ways to twist the laws in their favor. The Fourth Amendment gives Americans the right to be secure in homes and properties 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. (Reuters, 2013) This Amendment was set into place to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the power of the Constitution of the United States. In other words, to protect the people of the United States while preventing the states and government from abusing their powers and twisting the laws in order to benefit their illegal seizures. To begin with, in the trial of Weeks v. United States, the police were seeking evidence to prove that Weeks was transporting lottery tickets through the mail, which was considered illegal gambling in the state of Missouri. The police entered Weeks’ place of residence witho... ... middle of paper ... ...tandards of constitutional searches and seizures in the United States. Works Cited Benner, L., Bird, R., & Smythe, D. (2012). Social-network theory and the diffusion of the search-and-seizure exclusionary rule among state courts between weeks and wolf. BYU Journal of Public Law, 27(1), 97-144. Retrieved from Reuters, T. (2013). Fourth amendment-u.s. constitution. Retrieved from Shenfield, M. (1972). Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. California Law Review, 60(3), 870-881. Retrieved from

More about Revisiting Regulation Changing Cases

Open Document