More handpicked essays just for you.
Fourth amendment right why is it important
Fourth amendment legal analysis
The case of The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fourth amendment right why is it important
The defense in this case will argue that the government was required to acquire a valid search warrant before obtaining their personal business records pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The government will argue that they did not violate any of the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining the defendant’s business records without a search warrant because the business records gathered was not protected under the Constitution. It is clear that the only decision that could be made by the Court in United States v. Carpenter, is in favor of the defense in this case. A valid search warrant was required in order to collect the defendant’s business records. Obtaining the defendant’s business records without a valid search
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.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? 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, 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.
In the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v Lopez (1995), a twelfth grade boy, Alfonzo Lopez, brought a loaded .38 caliber firearm to his local Texas high school. After being reported to the front office, Lopez was questioned about the gun and openly admitted that the firearm was in his possession. Texas then convicted Alfonzo of a criminal statute, which prohibited the carrying of a gun on school grounds. However, the charges were dropped rather quickly when the United States Government charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
The Government alleges that the Defendant, Austin Heim, committed drug-related federal offenses. The Government believed the Defendant was using email in furtherance of these activities. It obtained a court order requiring Cornell University, the provider of the Defendant’s email account, to provide them the contents of the account. The Defendant filled a motion to suppress these emails at trial. The Defendant argues he has a right to privacy in his emails. He argues that the Government’s ‘warrantless search’ breached his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.
In Michigan v. Clifford, "the utility of requiring a magistrate to evaluate the grounds for a search following a fire is so limited that the incidental protection of an individual's privacy interests simply does not justify imposing a warrant requirement;" therefore, the search of the basement was reasonable (1984). The issues of that case revolve around the unreasonable search of the second floor of the home which required a criminal warrant because at that moment the arson inspectors had reasonable suspicion that the origin of the fire may have been arson (1984). Moreover, the effect and papers on the second floor of the Clifford's dwelling is protected under the 4th amendment (U.S. Const. amend. IV).
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.
hopes that it would help prevent future clerical errors. Since one of the main goals of the exclusionary rule is to prevent future violations, and in this case clerical errors.
In 2008, the Supreme Court case Heller v. District of Columbia ruled that Washington D.C gun law violated the Second Amendment. The reason why it violated individuals Second Amendment was because the law banned the possession of handguns. The Heller v. District of Columbia case brief is what led to McDonald v. Chicago. Otis McDonald is a resident of Chicago; he lived in his neighborhood for many years. But after the increase in crime, he felt the need to own a handgun despite of him already legally owning rifles and shotguns. He believed owing a handgun would be more useful when it comes down to him trying to protect himself. Yet, the City of Chicago has a requirement that requires all handguns to be registered with the city in order for the
413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419, 1973 U.S. 149.
Ohio case, the question was whether evidences obtained illegally through warrantless search can be used or not. The case focused on Mapp and how the Cleveland police illegally enter her home, look for evidences that does not exist and found something else which they decided that they can use against Mapp.
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.
Each year in the United States, children as young as 13 years old are sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison without any chance of getting released. There has been a worldwide agreement declaring that children cannot be held to the same standards of responsibility as adults and it is recognized that children are entitled to special protection and treatment. There are three types of juvenile waivers that have been allowing juveniles to be treated as adults in adult court. The Miller v. Alabama case is a step toward more just treatment of juvenile offenders following several decades’ worth of harsh treatment of youthful offenders.
Computer parts were missing on a daily basis, these computer parts were very expensive.The Japenese did not know who were stealing the parts, we were all a suspect. We have this big meeting one day, we were informed that our lockers were going to be emptied out and our person were going to be searched. This 4th amendment would require them to follow certain procedures to be able to search a person. We would not allow them to search us, and we would not open up our lockers, because they were doing this on their own, we felt they had no right to search us. the Fourth Amendment serves to protect the business and people. The fourth Amendment applies both to individuals and businesses