Fourth Amendment Exceptions

Fourth Amendment Exceptions

Length: 2959 words (8.5 double-spaced pages)

Rating: Excellent

Open Document

Essay Preview

More ↓

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
     The differentiation between open fields and private property must be made before one can proceed to form an opinion regarding the constitutionality of a warrantless search of an open field. Oliver v. United States is a case in which police officers, acting on reports from neighbors that a patch of marijuana was being cultivated on the Oliver farm, entered on to private property ignoring “No Trespassing” signs, and on to a secluded open portion of the Oliver property without a warrant, discovered the marijuana patch and then arrested Oliver without an arrest warrant. The Maine Judicial Court held that “No Trespassing” signs posted around the Oliver property “evinced a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and therefore the court held that the “open fields” doctrine was not applicable to the Oliver case.
     Upon hearing the case, the Supreme Court argues that the special protections accorded by the fourth amendment do not extend to open fields. “Open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance.” The court refers to the case of Hester v. United States (1924) which set the precedent for “open field cases” and interprets that case to imply that “an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home.” The patch of marijuana being no where near the Oliver home, and in an open field, regardless of its visibility from public access, left the court affirming Oliver v. United States, and reversing the case of Thornton v. Maine, and in essence reaffirming that

How to Cite this Page

MLA Citation:
"Fourth Amendment Exceptions." 123HelpMe.com. 18 Nov 2018
    <https://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=66133>.

Need Writing Help?

Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.

Check your paper »

Current Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence Essay

- Introduction The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was drafted by the Framers to protect the right to be free from governmental intrusion. Without a warrant and probable cause, an officer may not enter a home and search it. The use of GPS technology, however, enables the government to collect the same information without ever leaving the office. Thus, GPS based surveillance presents the issue of what protection the Fourth Amendment offers. Current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence offers little protection from warrantless surveillance....   [tags: Fourth Amendment, Rights, United States]

Research Papers
1599 words (4.6 pages)

The Fourth Amendment Essay

- Article VI 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 Preface I choose the fourth amendment for two reasons: - It recognizes a right that, inevitably, cannot be taken away from a person....   [tags: essays research papers]

Research Papers
950 words (2.7 pages)

Is It Truly An Emergency? Missouri V. Mcneely And Warrantless Blood Draws

- Catherine Dimitroff 3 August 2014 “Is It Truly an Emergency. Missouri v. McNeely and Warrantless Blood Draws” Introduction: The article “Is It Truly an Emergency. Missouri v. McNeely and Warrantless Blood Draws” discusses the constitutionality of warrantless blood draws in conjunction with automobile accidents that may or may not be the result of driving under the influence of alcohol. In Missouri v. McNeely the U.S. Supreme court approached the constitutional requirement that all searches must be conducted with probable cause within regards to the accident to support any arrest based on driving under the influence....   [tags: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]

Research Papers
1593 words (4.6 pages)

Arizona vs Gant: The Fourth Ammendment and Search Warrants Essay

- ... After Gant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a third patrol car, officers proceeded to search Gant’s car. During their search they found a gun in the car and a bag of cocaine in a jacket pocket laying on the backseat of the car Gant was driving. Gant was charged with possession of the cocaine. He fought to have the evidence found in his car suppressed at trial because, he claimed, the search of his car had been unreasonable. Gant’s motion was denied and Gant was convicted of the crime....   [tags: Police, Arrest, Evidence]

Research Papers
960 words (2.7 pages)

Essay on The Constitutional And Unconstitutional Rights

- ... Evidence that could have possibly been collected under an illegal search or no warrant during the time the crime took place due to the exclusionary rule that protects rights of the citizens the evidence will not be admissible as follows. The reasoning for this exclusionary rule prevents thee government from resenting evidence in trial, which was gathered in violation of the fourth amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. The doctrine is used most common in American Courts. This exclusionary rule discourages police and law enforcement from obtaining illegal evidence or evidence collected without a search warrant....   [tags: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]

Research Papers
998 words (2.9 pages)

Not Every American Citizen 's Constitutional Rights Essay

- Not every American Citizen knows their Constitutional rights, in fact, they may know some but not all their rights like having the right to feel secure in their persons, houses and papers. The fourth Amendment actually prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. But do Citizens know when is ‘ok’ for police officers to actually search their home, car, and other personal stuff. Before a police officer searches anything someone owns they must have reasonable grounds that they will find any type of drugs, weapons and or any ‘stolen goods’....   [tags: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]

Research Papers
1179 words (3.4 pages)

Entering a Private Place without a Warrant Essays

- As said by the Fourth Amendment, " the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against an unreasonable search 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 be seized." The fourth amendment was set in place so that the police or any other law officials are not authorized to just come into people’s homes without permission and rummage through their personal belongings without the authority of a search warrant....   [tags: this week's scenario, the Fourth Ammendment]

Research Papers
759 words (2.2 pages)

The Declaration Of The Fourth Amendment Essay

- Abstract The United States Constitution contains basic rights, and some of those rights are the First Ten Amendments, that are known as Bill of Rights. In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects the people from unreasonable search, seizure and arrest. This paper will explore the history of the Fourth Amendment from the beginning until it was incorporated in the Bill of Rights, arrests, searches, exclusionary rule, warrant requirements, the fruit of the poisonous tree and what it is the USA Patriot Act....   [tags: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]

Research Papers
1997 words (5.7 pages)

The Exclusionary Rule Of The United States Essay

- The exclusionary rule is one of the utmost controversial rulings in our judicial system. The exclusionary rule can be best defined as “the principle based on federal Constitutional Law that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect 's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.” (The Free Dictionary , 1981-2015) The exclusionary rule is not to be mistaken as being intertwined within the constitution for it is not a part of it, instead it is a remedy specially designed by the courts to reconcile violations against a defendant’s 4th amendment rights....   [tags: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]

Research Papers
1436 words (4.1 pages)

4th Amendment Essay

- 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 affi...   [tags: Government Constitution Amendments History Essays]

Research Papers
1098 words (3.1 pages)

Related Searches

warrantless searches of open fields are not violations of an individual’s constitutional rights, but are simply acts of common-law trespassing, which the court finds does not exceed the governments need to protect the public from illegal activity which may occur on privately owned open fields, and any expectation of privacy to mask these illegal activities are most definitely not provided for under the constitution.
California v. Greenwood deals with the issue of whether or not the Fourth Amendment prohibits “the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.” California v. Greenwood is a case in which police received reports that Greenwood was involved in narcotics trafficking. A warrantless search of the respondents trash developed evidence which corroborated this and led to Greenwood’s arrest, bail, future arrest, and conviction. In this case, the lower courts and the Supreme Court agree that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage outside a private residence.
     The court states that the respondent “could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded.” The court states that “Furthermore. . . the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public.” Therefore, objects in plain view can not be accorded for under the Fourth Amendment for any reasonable expectation of privacy simply because of the fact that their former owner would discard these items or expose them to public view without any attempt to maintain the privacy of their discarded personal effects. The court argues that the only way in which the Fourth Amendment could provide protection over discarded personal effects would be if the respondent was able to manifest some expectation of privacy that society could find “objectively reasonable,” and while the petitioner and respondent agree, they could not manifest such an expectation.
     These exceptions are indeed consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure for the previously stated reasons; With regards to open field searches the court finds that the Fourth Amendment only protects the privacy of the individual and their property within a close proximity to the curtilage of their home, and warrantless search of an open field amounts to little more than trespassing rather than a violation of a constitutional right. With regards to the search of objects in plain view, the court has held that objects in plain view have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy simply, and clearly because of the fact that the owner of these personal effects has not afforded the kind of privacy over these effects as society would expect. In California v. Greenwood the Justices clearly states that unless the respondent could manifest some reasonable expectation of privacy for discarded effects that society would find objectively reasonable, than the Fourth Amendment can not and will not protect the privacy of the individual with regards to objects in plain view.
     In the future, one can expect to see an increase in these types of cases simply because with the advancement of technology it is becoming increasingly easier for law enforcement and government to perform more in-depth and thorough types of surveillance without the knowledge of the private citizen. While the same constitutional rights exist for the individual citizen, those rights will be infringed upon at a greater frequency with the advancement of surveillance technologies, and knew precedents will inevitably have to be set by the Supreme Court as these cases are heard, one by one.     The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
     The differentiation between open fields and private property must be made before one can proceed to form an opinion regarding the constitutionality of a warrantless search of an open field. Oliver v. United States is a case in which police officers, acting on reports from neighbors that a patch of marijuana was being cultivated on the Oliver farm, entered on to private property ignoring “No Trespassing” signs, and on to a secluded open portion of the Oliver property without a warrant, discovered the marijuana patch and then arrested Oliver without an arrest warrant. The Maine Judicial Court held that “No Trespassing” signs posted around the Oliver property “evinced a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and therefore the court held that the “open fields” doctrine was not applicable to the Oliver case.
     Upon hearing the case, the Supreme Court argues that the special protections accorded by the fourth amendment do not extend to open fields. “Open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance.” The court refers to the case of Hester v. United States (1924) which set the precedent for “open field cases” and interprets that case to imply that “an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home.” The patch of marijuana being no where near the Oliver home, and in an open field, regardless of its visibility from public access, left the court affirming Oliver v. United States, and reversing the case of Thornton v. Maine, and in essence reaffirming that warrantless searches of open fields are not violations of an individual’s constitutional rights, but are simply acts of common-law trespassing, which the court finds does not exceed the governments need to protect the public from illegal activity which may occur on privately owned open fields, and any expectation of privacy to mask these illegal activities are most definitely not provided for under the constitution.
California v. Greenwood deals with the issue of whether or not the Fourth Amendment prohibits “the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.” California v. Greenwood is a case in which police received reports that Greenwood was involved in narcotics trafficking. A warrantless search of the respondents trash developed evidence which corroborated this and led to Greenwood’s arrest, bail, future arrest, and conviction. In this case, the lower courts and the Supreme Court agree that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage outside a private residence.
     The court states that the respondent “could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded.” The court states that “Furthermore. . . the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public.” Therefore, objects in plain view can not be accorded for under the Fourth Amendment for any reasonable expectation of privacy simply because of the fact that their former owner would discard these items or expose them to public view without any attempt to maintain the privacy of their discarded personal effects. The court argues that the only way in which the Fourth Amendment could provide protection over discarded personal effects would be if the respondent was able to manifest some expectation of privacy that society could find “objectively reasonable,” and while the petitioner and respondent agree, they could not manifest such an expectation.
     These exceptions are indeed consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure for the previously stated reasons; With regards to open field searches the court finds that the Fourth Amendment only protects the privacy of the individual and their property within a close proximity to the curtilage of their home, and warrantless search of an open field amounts to little more than trespassing rather than a violation of a constitutional right. With regards to the search of objects in plain view, the court has held that objects in plain view have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy simply, and clearly because of the fact that the owner of these personal effects has not afforded the kind of privacy over these effects as society would expect. In California v. Greenwood the Justices clearly states that unless the respondent could manifest some reasonable expectation of privacy for discarded effects that society would find objectively reasonable, than the Fourth Amendment can not and will not protect the privacy of the individual with regards to objects in plain view.
     In the future, one can expect to see an increase in these types of cases simply because with the advancement of technology it is becoming increasingly easier for law enforcement and government to perform more in-depth and thorough types of surveillance without the knowledge of the private citizen. While the same constitutional rights exist for the individual citizen, those rights will be infringed upon at a greater frequency with the advancement of surveillance technologies, and knew precedents will inevitably have to be set by the Supreme Court as these cases are heard, one by one.     The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
     The differentiation between open fields and private property must be made before one can proceed to form an opinion regarding the constitutionality of a warrantless search of an open field. Oliver v. United States is a case in which police officers, acting on reports from neighbors that a patch of marijuana was being cultivated on the Oliver farm, entered on to private property ignoring “No Trespassing” signs, and on to a secluded open portion of the Oliver property without a warrant, discovered the marijuana patch and then arrested Oliver without an arrest warrant. The Maine Judicial Court held that “No Trespassing” signs posted around the Oliver property “evinced a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and therefore the court held that the “open fields” doctrine was not applicable to the Oliver case.
     Upon hearing the case, the Supreme Court argues that the special protections accorded by the fourth amendment do not extend to open fields. “Open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance.” The court refers to the case of Hester v. United States (1924) which set the precedent for “open field cases” and interprets that case to imply that “an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home.” The patch of marijuana being no where near the Oliver home, and in an open field, regardless of its visibility from public access, left the court affirming Oliver v. United States, and reversing the case of Thornton v. Maine, and in essence reaffirming that warrantless searches of open fields are not violations of an individual’s constitutional rights, but are simply acts of common-law trespassing, which the court finds does not exceed the governments need to protect the public from illegal activity which may occur on privately owned open fields, and any expectation of privacy to mask these illegal activities are most definitely not provided for under the constitution.
California v. Greenwood deals with the issue of whether or not the Fourth Amendment prohibits “the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.” California v. Greenwood is a case in which police received reports that Greenwood was involved in narcotics trafficking. A warrantless search of the respondents trash developed evidence which corroborated this and led to Greenwood’s arrest, bail, future arrest, and conviction. In this case, the lower courts and the Supreme Court agree that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage outside a private residence.
     The court states that the respondent “could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded.” The court states that “Furthermore. . . the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public.” Therefore, objects in plain view can not be accorded for under the Fourth Amendment for any reasonable expectation of privacy simply because of the fact that their former owner would discard these items or expose them to public view without any attempt to maintain the privacy of their discarded personal effects. The court argues that the only way in which the Fourth Amendment could provide protection over discarded personal effects would be if the respondent was able to manifest some expectation of privacy that society could find “objectively reasonable,” and while the petitioner and respondent agree, they could not manifest such an expectation.
     These exceptions are indeed consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure for the previously stated reasons; With regards to open field searches the court finds that the Fourth Amendment only protects the privacy of the individual and their property within a close proximity to the curtilage of their home, and warrantless search of an open field amounts to little more than trespassing rather than a violation of a constitutional right. With regards to the search of objects in plain view, the court has held that objects in plain view have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy simply, and clearly because of the fact that the owner of these personal effects has not afforded the kind of privacy over these effects as society would expect. In California v. Greenwood the Justices clearly states that unless the respondent could manifest some reasonable expectation of privacy for discarded effects that society would find objectively reasonable, than the Fourth Amendment can not and will not protect the privacy of the individual with regards to objects in plain view.
     In the future, one can expect to see an increase in these types of cases simply because with the advancement of technology it is becoming increasingly easier for law enforcement and government to perform more in-depth and thorough types of surveillance without the knowledge of the private citizen. While the same constitutional rights exist for the individual citizen, those rights will be infringed upon at a greater frequency with the advancement of surveillance technologies, and knew precedents will inevitably have to be set by the Supreme Court as these cases are heard, one by one.
Return to 123HelpMe.com