The Fourth Amendment in Modern Culture
The Fourth Amendment, as most Americans know, is in place for the protection of the people from unreasonable and unlawful searches and seizures; however, in the age of social revolution and advanced technology, just how safe are the people of America from this threat? This is a question many people have asked, and yet a clear answer has not established during the last 240 years of this great social experiment that is the United States of America. In order to fully understand what the Fourth Amendment was put in place for, one first has to understand the time in which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written. With an understanding of the unbiased and uncensored knowledge of the past, and with
…show more content…
The time of the Founding Fathers was monopolized by the rule of the tyrannical British Crown. It was this experience that inspired the Founding Fathers to establish the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment. During the time of British occupation of the thirteen original colonies the colonists were under strict rule by the Crown, which was led by General Thomas Gage. General Gage is well known for his leadership of the British in many battles, including the battles of Lexington and Concord, the battle for Bunker Hill, and the Siege of Boston. The American Revolution took place while the colonies were under his rule. This all began after many disputes between British troops and colonists about the ownership of firearms and their rebellion over paying the outrageous tea …show more content…
Although this seems like a good step the process is still corrupted and fails to truly and fully protect citizens. As stated above, in order to obtain a search warrant authorities must have a strong probable cause to believe that a person has committed an actual crime. In normal criminal investigations, such as robberies and murders, obtaining a search warrant requires the local authorities to show substantial evidence to a judge that a person has committed a crime. The judge will then choose to sign a warrant for the searches of particular things within the suspect’s home or possessions based on the evidence he or she is presented with. These warrants are traditionally served directly to a person and are also available to be reviewed with the subjects legal counsel. This rule has been circumvented on a national scale in regards to digital communications with the creating of the “Patriot Act”
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
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
According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Without the Fourth Amendment, people would have no rights over their own personal privacy. Police officers could just enter people’s houses and take anything that they could use as evidence and use it against them. With the advancement in today’s technology, it is getting more and more difficult to define what exactly privacy is to us, and whether or not the Fourth Amendment protects it.
“The Fourth Amendment wasn't written for people with nothing to hide any more than the First Amendment was written for people with nothing to say.” (Dave Krueger). The Fourth Amendment protects the people's values, including the right of privacy. The Fourth Amendment includes, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated.” When the founding fathers created the Constitution they ensured the people fundamental laws that would be used to any issue portrayed in the Supreme Court. That gave the people a relief that no one is ever above the law that is created. The privacy of the people was a very big value enforced by warrants. In the case of the
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.
The 4th amendment of The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Henry David Thoreau once said, “That government is best which governs least," this statement is true because the more the government is involved, the more complicated life becomes for the people of the U.S. When government is too involved in something, it can soon becomes corrupt. The Safford Unified School District v. Redding was a case in 2009 where thirteen year old Savanna was suspected to have given prescription-strength ibuprofen to a friend in school, this resulted in the vice principal taking her backpack and searching for more pills. Nothing was found in Savanna’s backpack so she was sent by the vice principal to the nurse’s office to be stripped of all her clothes including her undergarments; again nothing was found. In this instance the school became overly involved for non-justifiable reasons which caused the situation to become corrupt. This is comparable to when the government and law enforcement is too involved in the citizen’s lives. It is of unjust law to search the American people without probable cause. The school strip searched Savanna illegally which
In 1787, the Constitution, created by a group of men known as the “Framers”, is the highest law in the United States. At first, the Constitution was not ratify because it did not have a bill of rights which is a list of rights that belong to the people. Therefore to allow changes to the Constitution, the Framers created the amendment process. In 1791, congress proposed twelve changes to the Constitution. Ten of the twelve changes were agreed to by the states and were called “The Bill of Rights.” Some of these rights include the right of free speech, the right to practice your own religion and the right to be silent if you are arrested.
The Fourth Amendment provides people with the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Courts have long recognized that the Forth Amendment protected individuals from unjustified police intrusions into one’s person, home, car, or other possessions, but few practical protection mechanisms existed. To preserve these constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court established standards by which police officers must abide. One such protection has been the probable cause — a belief that the person committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order to uphold an arrest or seizure, courts have required a probable cause combined with either a warrant or circumstances
It is a common known fact that the Bill of Rights serve as a type of contract between the government and the people that outlines the specific rights that each individual is entailed and the government cannot revoke those rights. The Fourth Amendment protects those accused of a crime by preventing officials from searching the home, property, or body of the accused without a valid reason or a search warrant. Despite being a crucial amendment in terms of the privacy and personal protection of an individual, the history behind the conception of the amendment and the history of the amendment in the modern day is not known to a majority of the American population.
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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
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.' (Encarta Online) In the court case of Katz v. United States it was said that, 'the 4th Amendment protects the people and not certain areas against search and seizure.' (Katz v. U.S.) Without this amendment people would have no claim over their personal privacy, or security. Any officer could enter homes and take any evidence that could be used to make an arrest or that could be used for prosecution in court.
It is 1776, the United States had just declared it’s Independence from England and one of those reasons for departing was the requirement to house British soldiers at anytime. After the French and Indian War England felt the need to thousands of soldiers in the colonies and an colonial quartering act was passed in 1765.When the British required the quartering of soldiers in the colonies it had passed in England that quartering of soldiers was not required. This quartering act on the colonies along with overtaxing lead to the start of the Revolution.Once the Americans won the war and had need to draft a constitution for the newly formed country, the exclusion of this requirement had to be added to the Bills of Rights.
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
Today, many Americans feel that the Fourth Amendment has been violated by the government, law enforcement officers, and many others with authority. The Fourth Amendment states that no American citizen will be subject to unjust searches and seizures. Which means that they are secure in their house, persons, paper, and effects. Many people believe the main reason the Revolutionary War was fought because of the fourth Amendment. John Adams said it was the catalyst that started the war. Before our Independence from England, the British officers had the writs of Assistance, which allowed them to search anyone’s property and belongings. This amendment restricts anyone in America to do the same thing as the British officers. The Fourth Amendment is