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 logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution. It violates the precedent set in Miranda and seems tainted with a desire to justify consent searches at any cost. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen, but it is also dangerous because it shows that the Court is not the unbiased referee between liberty and democracy that it should be.
One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s rights in due process. The controversial issue from the Fourth Amendment, which some may regard as implied, but others may regard having a broader meaning, comes from the Exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule was created by the Supreme Court and says that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be used against a person in federal court” (Great American Court Cases 360).
4th Amendment In the late 1700's the 4th Amendment was written because of strong objections to the Writs of Assistance or general warrants. The Writs Assistance gave officials the right to enter any home and seize belongings without a reasonable cause. (Grolier Encyclopedia) The 4th amendment was ratified in the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1771. This amendment protects the people's right to privacy and security. (Encarta Online) The Fourth Amendment states, '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.'
There is no doubt that the act is reprehensible and the teenagers are liable for property damage and intimidating a family, but the charge brought upon them focused on their motivation rather than their criminal acts. The optimal way to deal with hate speech is not to limit or prohibit it any manner, as that will only further enrage people as they feel they are being stripped of their constitutional rights, which they indeed are. Control over hate speech is not going to be a successful deterrent, but imposing stricter laws and regulations will. They discourage volatile acts without punishing an individual for their beliefs, even if they are contrary to the majority’s. To argue against the limitation of hate speech is not automatically equivalent to being racist or not caring about the well-being of others, specifically minority targets, but understanding the manner in which our Constitution operates.
Without the law, many suspects may be treated unfairly. It is a necessary safeguard. Miranda is a ruling which says that the accused have the right to remain silent and prosecutors may not use statements made by them while in police custody, unless the police advice them of their rights. In other words, a police officer must inform a suspect of this fundamental right, under the Fifth Amendment, at the time of their arrest and or interrogation. Miranda protect ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves.
This perception is a flawed overestimation of the results of the rule’s principles. The principle in this case is that the exclusionary rule serves to protect the rights of the accused, and is specifically designed to create an incentive for police officials to obtain evidence without violating the rights of the accused. Should it be found that the evidence obtained was done so illegally, then the evidence is inadmissible in a court of law. The point at which most desire to attack the exclusionary rule is that it enables those who are found with incriminating items to walk free. The most ardent critics of the exclusionary rule underestimate the good done by the rule, while appealing to commonly held paranoia of losing a war on crime in order to exaggerate its weaknesses.
Others, like myself, argue that police should not be required to wear this equipment. “On the other hand, skeptics are concerned that camera footage cannot provide full and accurate details of incidents, that the increasing use of video technology raises privacy concerns, and that the adoption of body cameras fails to address the underlying causes of social problems.” (Tsin 2). Wearing a body camera will not stop the suspect from doing what they intended to do, if anything he or she would act out more in aggression. In most cases, body cameras show that it was the suspect that is the one who is unwilling to comply with the officers commands. Body cameras are seen an invasion of privacy.
The ‘exclusionary rule’ was created to put under limitations the Federal officials and United States courts as they exercise their powers and authority. Additionally, it is in place to see that people maintain their own privacy and rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendments. It also allows people to secure their premises, person, papers and other effects from unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures under the pretense of law. The United States constitution does not allow or tolerate police searches and seizures without warrants and therefore illegal searches and seizure unless there is a good reason for it. This article will argue that the provision for ‘exclusionary rule’ has deterred the police from harassing innocent citizens particularly the minorities groups and defendants too with illegal and unwarranted searches and seizures.
The only reason that evidence would be dismissed is because of the way in which it was found. This punishes law enforcement for doing their job. In the future, it could make the police second-guess themselves while on duty. The implementation of the good faith clause and the inevitable discovery doctrine have been incorporated into our court systems for this specific reason. Policemen and women are only human; people will make mistakes so it is in the United States best interests to disregard mistakes that will dismiss important evidence in court.