More handpicked essays just for you.
A descriptive essay about the 4th amendment
A descriptive essay about the 4th amendment
A court case dealing with the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Have you ever wondered if the Fourth Amendment is followed by the law enforcement? The Fourth Amendment reads “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 person or things to be seized” (Stephens). The topics that will be addressed today are protecting personal privacy, supreme court helps to understand the right to decline to a law enforcement search of suspects home; The Fourth Amendment and faulty originalism, and high court expands power to search. Citizens’ right to personal privacy …show more content…
Supreme Court made it significantly easier for police to conduct a warrantless search of a home when one of the two occupant’s objects to a police search but the other does not (Richey N.P.). If one of them objects it means they just don’t want them searching or they have something to hide from them. The question in the case, Fernandez V California (12-7822), was whether the girlfriend’s agreement to allow the police to search the apartment overcame Fernandez's fourth amendment right to be free from such police intrusions without a warrant (Richey N.P.). There were 2 occupants and one of them agreed to the search while the other didn’t and they were deciding if the girl’s decision was more important than a man’s fourth amendment right. In the case Fernandez was refusing to let the law enforcers in his door while his girlfriend said it was ok. Fernandez is a suspect already and his girlfriend doesn’t know so she agrees to let them search. The Supreme Court told the law enforcers that they had to honor the decision of Fernandez when he was physically present at the location to be searched. Since Fernandez was physically present, the police had to respect his wishes. The decision significantly narrows a 2006 high court decision in which the justices ruled that police could not search a residence when one of the two occupants objects to such a search (Richey …show more content…
This is the full fourth amendment of your rights to personal privacy. What doom befell the fourth amendment? We might try looking at various eventful periods when governments, state and federal, felt unusually strong needs to arrest, search, and seize, such as the Civil War Reconstruction, World War I, Prohibition, World War II, the Cold Car, and (naturally) the war on drugs (Stromberg 9-13). The government felt it was a need to start arresting, searching, and seizing for the smallest reasons. It seems however, that long-running negligence, evasion, and misinterpretation have done more harm to the fourth amendment than have various short-run authoritarian panics (Stromberg 9-13). The government has hurt the Fourth Amendment more than helping it. The fourth amendment is mostly just another sign that politicians wave around that supposedly cause Americans to be “hated”. The government has messed up the fourth amendment so bad that people are hated for it
Said by Justice David Souter “ In the majority opinion, compared the reasonableness of such a search to a more casual interaction.” He believes that the co-occupants consent is not valid because their was the refusal of an other occupant. Beside on the Fourth Amendment it states that “ a valid warrantless entry and search of a premises when the police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, common authority over the property, and no present co-tenant objects.”
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
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
Privacy comes at a cost. It brings people who fight for the people the privacy of others when it is violated together. Cops not being able to search when they seize a cell phone makes them risk their lives because how people these days are, there could be bombs in the phone. Even though this amendment was ratified, people to this day still don’t have privacy they rightfully deserve. This effects me because I’m able to keep special information to myself. Also, if a police pulls over a family member and ask for their phone to investigate without giving a proper reason or having a warrant, that family member could say no. If a police hasn’t given you a good reason to hand something over, you have the right to resist or else the police are being unconstitutional. This amendment gives people the safety to do what they want(that’s legal). It also makes life better, but harder. Life is harder with this amendment because you have to watch out for who you trust that they won’t do anything to jeopardize your safety. This is relevant because a man in Indiana was tracked down by a GPS. It didn’t violate his 4th Amendment because the police got a warrant to put a tracking device in his mom’s car. This case represents how technology gives advantages and disadvantages. An advantage was that they were able to track him down for a burglary. The disadvantage would be that if they hadn’t gotten a warrant, he could have filed a lawsuit against
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 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.
Government could bust into your home and go through anything they wanted for no reason whatsoever. In countries where it is legal for law enforcement and government to search without probable cause, the people fear living everyday. The 4th amendment should never be infringed upon. Considering Immigrants leave their home overseas to become American citizens, America needs to remain as free as possible to ensure the citizens feel safe. This amendment is important because it regularly compels the government to follow and obey a clear standard when it comes to American’s privacy and the idea that we are always innocent until proven guilty, and that our privacy is protected first and foremost until there is reasonable
How much privacy do we as the American people truly have? American Privacy is not directly guaranteed in any manner under the United States Constitution; however, by the Fourth Amendment, Americans are protected from illegal search and seizure. So then isn’t it ironic that in today’s modern world, nothing we do that it is in any way connected to the internet is guaranteed to remain discreet? A Google search, an email, a text message, or even a phone call are all at risk of being intercepted, traced, geo located, documented, and stored freely by the government under the guise of “protecting” the American people. Quite simply, the Government in order to protect us and our rights, is willing to make a hypocrite of itself and act as though our right is simply a privilege, and without any form of consent from the people, keep virtual tabs on each and every one of us. In the words of Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis “The right to privacy is a person's right to be left alone by the government... the right most valued by civilized men." Privacy isn’t just Privilege, it is nonnegotiable right, and deserves to be treated as such.
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
When the law enforcement searched Wurie’s phone, they did not have a warrant to have the illegal evidence from his cell phone, moreover, it required the court to reconsider Wurie’s sentence. Furthermore, the case of the United States v. Olmstead, Olmstead was suspected as a bootlegger, therefore, got the federal agents to install wiretaps in the basement of his building, convicting him of being a bootlegger with the illegal evidence that got from the wiretaps. Most people argued that the federal agents violated Olmstead’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment, but the court agreed that it did not violate those amendments and that the Fourth Amendment did not require a warrant for wiretapping, if listening devices were outside of the home. Also, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, law officials convicted Mapp of possessing obscene materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. However, during they're illegal search they didn’t find evidence of being a suspect to a crime, they still arrested for obscene materials they found during the search. Since the law officials search was illegal, the Supreme Court agreed that the evidence of the obscene materials be concealed in court by providing a limited
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.
Privacy (Pri-va-cy) n.1.the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. Americans fear that technological progress will destroy the concept of privy. The first known use of wiretap was in 1948. It’s no secret that the government watches individuals on a daily bases. According to the constitution, the Fourth Amendment serves to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Unreasonable is the word that tips the balance On one side is the intrusion on individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights and the other side is legitimate government interests, such as public safety. What we consider reasonable by law, the government might not think so. The word ‘privacy’ seems to be non-existent today in the 21st century; the use and advances of technology have deprived us of our privacy and given the government the authority to wiretap and or intervene in our lives. Our natural rights we’ve strived for since the foundation of this nation are being slashed down left to right when we let the government do as they wish. The government should not be given the authority to intervene without a reasonable cause and or consent of the individual
There have been common concerns in regards to the fourth amendment from colonial times till present day. From the original disputes with the British, to the evolution of warrants and when they are necessary, there are still unsettling feelings remaining. Back before America was a country of its own, colonists were continually subjected to raids by soldiers who were trying to find smuggled goods. British officials operated under writs of assistance, which were “general search warrants issued by superior provincial courts to assist the British government in enforcing trade and navigation laws” (Encyclopedia Britannica). The use of these were considered the utmost arbitrary abusement of power, and were outlawed in several states after independence was won from Great Britain. As years became centuries, the purpose of a warrant developed. Currently, in order for law enforcement to conduct a search of someone’s property, they need a reasonable basis that would lead them to believe a crime is being
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
In September 25, 1789, the First Amendment protects people’s privacy of beliefs without government intrusion. The Fourth Amendment protects one’s person and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. On February 1, 1886 in Boyd v. U.S. Supreme Court recognized the protection of privacy interests under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In the 1890s, the legal concept of pr...