Fourth Amendment Juurisprudence: A Case Study

Hey, Professor Farris, personal property has long been overlooked in the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The Constitution expressly protects the right of the people to be secured; however, the Fourth Amendment rules for searches of effects are comparatively underdeveloped. (Brady, 2016) I believe the right to privacy is affected by the property. Courts hold privacy in personal property that is unattended in public space. When an individual’s personal property is not located in their home or pocket, search law provides some code to whether the property is entitled to the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement officers search people they come in contact with during arrest; nevertheless, officers search the individual for their safety. The Fourth Amendment

protects places in which a person has a privacy interest. Is it safe to say that no one has ever questioned their body being their private property? "Courts and Officers should approach the question of whether something is effected by examining the legal and social identifiers surrounding the sort of object encountered" (Brady, 2016). If a person owns a property, he or she privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment. However, in civil law, a land lord has the right to invade privacy under a court order just as a warrant does for a law enforcement officers. This is a prime example of privacy being affected by the property. If an individual does not possess property, he or she has no privacy. The Fourth Amendment to protect privacy instead of the property allows people to challenge the government.

(References)

Brady, M. E. (2016). The Lost “Effects” of The Fourth Amendment; Giving Personal Property Due Protection: The Yale Law Journal: Retrieved August 10, 2017, from http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-lost-effects-of-the-fourth-amendment