The Bill of Rights or the first 10 amendments to the Constitution was proposed to Congress in 1789 by James Madison in response to the Anti- Federalist movement that lobbied for an extended amount of rights that would further safeguard liberty. The 4th amendment in particular was drafted to acknowledge the abuse of the writ of assistance, a “search warrant” issued by the British government to search boats that were thought to contain smuggled material in Colonial America. The 4th amendment can be broken down into 3 parts: what activities are considered to be a “search” or a “seizure”; what is a probable cause for a “search” and “seizure” and finally, how violations should be dealt with. The evolution of the 4th amendment is long and tumultuous, starting from what it meant at time of drafting, to the controversy over different interpretations in modern times. Through all the controversies and the debate over the meaning of the 4th amendment, the essence is always the same: to protect man’s liberty.
The 4th amendment, as we know it today, states as such:
“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.”
The origin of the 4th amendment dates all the way back to Pre-Revolutionary America, where Britain, in order to cut down on the amount of smuggling to and from the colonies, issued an order known as the writs of assistance which entailed that specially appointed warrants had the right to search homes and boats of colonists and if found, seize prohibite...
... middle of paper ...
...ourt case (Katz v. United States,1967) the clause extended itself to not only the physical property of a “search” but also a right to privacy, meaning that no law enforcer has the right to, for example, listen in to phone calls. The “seizure” clause in the amendment has to do with taking peoples property without the consent of the person. If the person does not consent however, the law enforcer has the right to go to a judge and present a case as to why the person’s property should be seized. If there is enough evidence, the judge may sign a written “permission slip” that allows the warrant to search and seize a person’s property even without their consent.
To search or to seize a person’s property a law enforcer must present evidence to a judge in a court of law that the person has prohibited goods or evidence that the person has been involved in a criminal act.
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
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
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.
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found in 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 particular case. The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action.
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.
The Fourth Amendment was passed in 1789 and later ratified in December 15, 1971. The Fourth Amendment offers protection and prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. When, how, and why these searches have taken place is protected under this law. An officer of the law would need a warrant to perform the search and has to have probable cause in order to search a person and their property. The Fourth Amendment is implicated in a search when someone is pulled over by the cops, when being placed under arrest, when officers enter the
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.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
The government and how the people perceive the laws and rules of the land have differed for many years, nor have there been many agreements when it comes to the Amendments especially the fourth Amendment. The right to have privacy and without a warrant shall not be searched or seized. With the fourth Amendment, there is always controversy because of the different viewpoints and perceptions of the nine exceptions to the Amendment. This is clearly demonstrated in the case Kyllo(DLK) vs United States(2001). DLK ended up being found with marijuana after being searched and seized from an issued warrant. While this is fine the controversy comes from the main evidence to obtain the warrant, which was pictures
Constantly the government and law enforcement attempt to push back the line of what the 4th amendment covers. A recent example is “stop-and-frisk” or the “Terry Stop”. This law allowed officers in New York City and other places in the country to stop people on the street based on “reasonable suspicion”, instead of a warrant, and search them for weapons and other criminal activity. While this law was ruled constitutional, I personally disagree with the court ruling. An officer
The amendment are a body of law Constitutional amendments Laws that is very important, they are put in place to govern the land, each amendment is put in place for balancing the world, where laws are concerned.As sltated by our book (Seaquist, 2012). constitutional law serve to balance and put a check on state and local law, for example, and in turn, the federal government is limited in its powers to legislate and must give states the power to regulate certain matters, there is no "one" law, as in a country whose legal system is based on civil law,” (Seaquist, 2012 pg.1.1). Amendment IV is based of the people right to be secure in their person, houses, paper and also their effects, this amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, no ones right shall not beviolated, and no Warrants shall be issue, but uless there is probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place tobe searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Seaquist, 2012). Before the govement can take someone property it must have a valid search warrant, that is issussed by a judge and it must be based on probably cause, there has to be a reason to search. the Fourth
Notably, this law does not apply in all circumstances such as when there is reason to believe that the item being sought will be removed before a search warrant can be issued. Furthermore, automobile searches are often conducted without a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is important because it provides U.S. citizens with a sense of autonomy over one’s self without the thought of being unjustly invaded by government officials. Due to the regulations imposed by this law American people can feel safe to conduct their lives as they normally would, providing that they are living within the limitations of the law. As a member of the minority community this law is of particular importance because it serves to police the police by holding them accountable and preventing them from targeting certain groups of people. While racial profiling has not been completely banned, this law reduces the number of individuals who would be unjustly targeted based on demographics and race. A legal scholar may disagree with the Fourth amendment and argue that the submission of evidence obtained illegally or without a warrant should be admissible if there was probable cause for an arrest even if the arrest is not directly linked to the evidence found which produced evidence of further criminal activity. Such as in the case of Utah vs. Strieff.
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 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... ... middle of paper ... ...