This paper discusses the contrast of two landmark United States (U.S.) Supreme Court cases that helped to clearly define how the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution is interpreted, and analyzes the difference between the “Constitution” and “Constitutional Law.” Two cases that are referenced in this analysis are (1) Katz v. United States, 386 U.S. 954 (U.S. March 13, 1967), and (2) Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (U.S. June 4, 1928), which differed in ruling; one eventually overturning the other. Finally, a conclusion is drawn as to the importance of these case decisions in the lives of Americans. Constitution v. Constitutional Law The Fourth (4th) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides 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, 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” (Kanovitz, 2010). Courts use a two-part test to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched (Kanovitz, 2010). First, did the person actually expect some degree of privacy? Second, is the person's expectation objectively reasonable, being one that society is willing to recognize? (Kanovitz, 2010). However, in order for the 4th Amendment to be enforced, the U.S. Supreme Court acted upon the powers warranted by Congress to protect and uphold the Constitution. The 4th Amendment does not clearly define exactly what an unreasonable search is thus, leaving the interpretation to the discretion of... ... middle of paper ... ...ible items from “unreasonable search and seizure.” This was a landmark decision that has since redefined, as well as clarified the intended meaning of the way the 4th Amendment is applied to civil liberties of today. References Kanovitz, J. R. (2010). Constitutional Law (12th ed.). (E. R. Ebben, Ed.) New Providence, NJ, U.S.A.: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., LexisNexis Gorup. Katz v. United States, 386 U.S. 954 (U.S. March 13, 1967). FindLaw http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=386&invol=954 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (U.S. June 4, 1928). Cornell University Law School; Legal Information Center; http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZS.html Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 p.353. (U.S. March 6, 1961). Justia.com; http://supreme.justia.com/us/365/505/case.html
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Gunther, G. (1991). Constitutional Law. Twelfth Edition. New York: The Foundation Press, Inc. pp. 1154-1161.
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by 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 certain case.
TEXAS v. JOHNSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 25 January 2014.
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.
Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
Anastaplo, George. The Amendments to the Constitution: A Commentary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1995. Print.
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). 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 Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1964) 40.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Newman, Roger K., ed. The Constitution and Its Amendments. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan Reference, 1999. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.