Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
4th amendment negatives
4th amendment analysis
Questions on the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: 4th amendment negatives
Consent- A common Fourth Amendment Exception
It is amazing that in this day and age that there is even a concern about the constitutional rights of suspects involved in computer related crime. The rights of the citizens of this country have been eroded by the passage of many laws including the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.O.T. Act. People can expect to have less privacy because of these laws. The government can enter a person’s house that is not suspected of terrorism or any criminal activity at all. They are free to search the house of that person. There is a good chance that whatever crime is observed will not be ignored. If the government searches a house under a secret warrant possible by the Act, and finds child pornography, the suspect is sure to be prosecuted. It is almost impossible to determine what type of defense that an attorney would use. Maybe the federal government would use their evidence found in regards to the Act to tip off local law enforcement of any violations of the law. This would give local law enforcement officers the means to follow the proper procedures such as obtainin...
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen. It asserts that an individual can verbally waive their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures so long as this waiver is not coerced by a government official. The Court goes on to decide that it is not required for suspects to demonstrate knowledge of these rights before waiving them. The blow to liberty interest is put most elegantly in Justice Marshall's dissent when he writes, "I have difficulty in comprehending how a decision made without knowledge of available alternatives can be treated as a choice at all." This precedent that a citizen may make a decision to waive their rights without knowing of the alternative, in this case maintaining the Fourth Amendment's protections, is perfectly legitimate is dangerous for liberty interests in a world where order-seeking policemen seek to take advantage of uninformed citizens. It is a terrible matter of policy. The logic in reaching this conclusion is no better. It is an argument fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution.
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
In the following paper, I will argue that the loopholes in the 4th amendment to the United States Constitution unfairly target people of color, resulting in higher incarceration rates. In Chapter 2 of the New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander discusses the 4th amendment’s evolution within the court system. Initially, consent searches were used to incriminate people without having enough evidence to stop a person. During consent searches, officers simply ask for consent to search the person and/or their property. This seems rather just if the person has an understanding that they are allowed to deny the officer the privileges of searching; however, this is not the case for most people as they believe that one must comply with an officer’s request. Through the evolution of the 4th amendment within
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 Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that individuals have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and impacts, against absurd searches and seizures, yet the issue close by here is whether this additionally applies to the ventures of open fields and of articles in plain view and whether the fourth correction gives insurance over these also. With a specific end goal to reaffirm the courts' choice on this matter I will be relating their choices in the instances of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which bargain straightforwardly with the inquiry of whether an individual can have sensible desires of protection as accommodated in the fourth correction concerning questions in an open field or in plain view.
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.
Sexual intercourse between two people who willingly consent to the actions results in strong human emotional bonding. The act is permissible only when the two parties involved mutually desire to engage in sexual intercourse with each other. In the following case, the mutual agreement is broken. A man engages in sexual intercourse with his wife who is in a minimal conscious state and is paralyzed after an automobile accident. The wife is a 29-year-old woman who suffered from severe brain injury, leaving her unable to care for herself. She is only able to show some response to visual, auditory and tactile stimulation. In addition to being incontinent, she is unable to walk, talk, move or eat on her own. Despite her incapacities, her husband chose to continue the sexual relationship he previously shared with his wife, but consequently she became pregnant. The pregnancy was terminated because it was in the best interest of the wife’s health. The wife’s family considers the husband’s actions rape, and notified the police. The husband’s actions go against fundamental moral and ethical principles. The husband’s actions are deemed unethical because the wife’s incompetency disables her capability to consent to sexual intercourse, leaving her with no choice.
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.
Ramsis #53 Mon. 4:00-6:40 History 110 Nobiletti 12/12/13 Four freedoms 11 months before the United States of America would declare war on Japan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered a speech to the American people known as the “four freedoms” on January 6, 1941.1 The main purpose of this speech was to rally support to enter World War 2, however in order to declare war the United States of America had to abandon the isolationist policies that emerged out of WWI. These four freedoms would establish human rights after the war, but more importantly they would resonate throughout the United States for decades after the war. Some of these freedoms have remained the same, and some of these freedoms have changed throughout the years. We will be looking at three periods and comparing how the freedoms varied from each of the three periods.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was first introduced in 1789 by James Maddison, and was a part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten amendments. The Fourth Amendment was created and ultimately it was created to protect two things the right to privacy and the freedom against unlawful invasions. The exact wording of the Fourth Amendment is “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.”(“Fourth Amendment”). Now after reading that some people may think they are completely safe from all types of searches and seizures, but they would be wrong. The Fourth Amendment is not a total protection against all searches and seizures against all searches and seizures; if it is declared under law a person can be searched or seized. (“What does the Fourth Amendment Mean?”). There are some specific things that are governed by the Fourth Amendment that deal specifically with criminal procedure such as arrests with warrants, searches with warrants, arrests without warrants, searches without warrants, seizure of evidence, and different types of stops and seizures (Criminal Procedure). All of this might seem confusing to the average American when just reading it casually and it sometimes can be for a person such as a police officer who is supposed to be fully educated on all these things and more. Almost all United States citizens know their First Amendment rights such as free speech and jury trial, but the Fourth Amendment always seems ...
Recent developments in standard of care and professional relationship with patients have made law fundamental to the study and practice of nursing. At every stage of patients care, law helps bring up to date nursing practice and it is essential that nurses understand the legal and ethical implications of law in their nursing profession (Griffith and Tengrah, 2011). The purpose of this essay is to discuss the concept of consent in relation to the role of the nurse. This will aim at demonstrate ethical and legal implication of consent on nursing practice and professional working. In the Code (2008, cited in Griffith and Tengrah, 2011) the Nursing and Midwifery Council set standards for nursing professional to follow. Among the rules is the requirement of nurses to obtain consent before care is given.
The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule has undergone a harsh and controversial development. This article not only critically analyzes the numerous alternatives and slight modifications to the exclusionary rule but the advanced by courts and commentators as well, (Schroeder, 1361). The article also puts emphasis on the alternative route of police policy making and a means to control official misconduct and violations of citizens rights. The exclusionary rule is one of the most significant defense stance of the fourth amendment. ITs establishment has created a wide spread of protection against violations of citizens rights.
The Right to Remain Silent The right of silence long considered the most fundamental right of a
The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are apart of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose (Privacy Concerns 1). “Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right…” (Privacy concerns 2). In 1998, the Human Rights Act, the act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals have, came into force; it incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 which protects the right to private and family life. Was the first time there was a generalized right to privacy recognized by law in this country.