The Fourth Amendment was created to protect citizens and their privacy against certain types of government interference and the citizens right to privacy (Bohm and Haley, 2011). The Fourth Amendment provides citizens with protection against unlawful searches and seizures of property. In order for an officer to search a citizens person, home, vehicle for the purpose of locating evidence that officer is required to have a search warrant, a written order from the court directing them to search the premises or person. The Judge or magistrate has to be provided probable cause by the officer for them to grant the warrant. Probable cause is sufficient evidence that the objects searched for are connected to criminal activity, and they …show more content…
In certain situations The officer can also legally search the person or property without a warrant, this process is called "exigent circumstances". It is a this time that the officer feels the evidence is in imminent danger Of being destroyed, or to prevent harm to individuals. The Fifth Amendment has several elements in its reading. The Fifth element gives the citizen The right to a Grand Jury indictment and protection against double jeopardy. This means when a Person is charged with a felony crime, they can request to have their case presented before the Grand jury to decide if there is enough evidence for the defendant to have a trial. The protection against double jeopardy is the state has only one chance to convict the defendant of that Particular crime (Bohm and Haley, 2011). This protect citizens from continually being harrassed for a Crime they were not found guility of. Secondly the Fifth Amendent protects the defendant from having to witness against themselves, This is the Protection against Compelled Self Incrimination safeguard (Bohm and Haley, 2011). The Sixth Amendment assures citizens to the right of a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
The Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence disputing that the Government was negligent in disclosing a purported promise of leniency made to Robert Taliento, their key witness in exchange for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney, DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant (Golden) who tried the case was unaware of the promise. The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on the grounds that this non-disclosure was a violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
A warranted search is per say reasonable. Officers may then employ various reasonable means of obtaining the information, e.g. search the content of U.S. mail, one’s house or office, or deploy an undercover agent as in Lewis v. United States (1966). They may, without need for physical intrusion as under the archaic trespass doctrine, utilize modern surveillance methods, such as electronic eavesdropping as in Lopez v. United States (1963) or heat signatures. (Solove and Schwartz 83) Under the third party doctrine, officers may obtain information that you voluntarily provide to your bank, accountant, ISP or e-mail provider as per United States v. Forrester (2008). (Ibid 197; 199) Conversely, “a warrantless search is generally considered to be per se unreasonable.” (Ibid 99) As noted in Katz v. United States (1967), “‘the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’ and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable…” (Ibid 99) Fail to meet any of the four elements and the warrant does not meet constitutional muster (see Berger v. New York (1967) wherein officers failed to stop surveillance at
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. '
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.
3. Does the enforcement of the subpoena guarantee the right of the accused according to the 5th and 6th Amendments?
Attempt by Congress to strike a balance between society's need for protection from crime and accused right to adequate proce...
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found in the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a particular case. The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action.
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.
One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
The Sixth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts and it was ruled that these rights are fundamental and important. The Sixth Amendment gives the accused the right to speedy and public trial by the impartial jury. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and reason of accusation and also be confronted with the witness against him as well as obtaining witness in his favor. In this research paper I will provide a thorough analysis of these above rights and give some history of the 6th Amendment.
The First Amendment is crucial in protecting the five fundamental freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of petition, and freedom of assembly. The Fourth Amendment is significant for it protects the individual’s privacy from the government and from government harassment. The Sixth Amendment is valuable since it provides the legal framework of the criminal legal system and to protect the accused person from abuse of power. Of all the Amendments of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment are the most
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
Police officers obtain warrants by providing a judge or magistrate with information that the officers have gathered. Many places have a judicial officer whom is available around the clock to issue warrants. If the suspect, who may be connected with the place to be searched, is not present when the warrant is issued and therefore cannot contest where as there is probable cause before the magistrate signs the warrant. The suspect can later challenge the validity of the warrant with a pre trial motion. In general, when deciding whether to issue a search warrant, a judge or magistrate will likely consider information in an affidavit reliable if it comes from any of the following sources: a confidential police informant whose past reliability has been established or who has firsthand knowledge of illegal activity, an informant who implicates himself or herself as well as the suspect, an informant whose information appears to be correct after at least partial verification by the police, a victim of a crime related to the search, a witness to the crime related to the search, or another police
The 4th Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
taken from the suspect has often been enough to charge a person with the offense