More handpicked essays just for you.
Fourth amendment to the united states constitution
Fourth amendment to the united states constitution
4th amendment wording
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
One of the most important amendments in the United States Constitution and which is also part of the Bill of Rights is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people from being searched or arrested by police officers or any law enforcement without a reason. An officer may confront you and ask to search your house but if they don’t have a search warrant, they cannot legally pursue it without good reason and permission from a judge. Now what happens when a person is being arrested? Does the police or any law enforcement need a search warrant? The answer to that question would have to be no. This is where “Search incident to arrest” comes into play. Search incident to arrest (SITA), which could also be called the Chimel rule, is a …show more content…
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
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
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 Supreme Court has held that vehicle searches are permitted if the arrestee is unsecured and is reaching distance from the passenger compartment or if the vehicle would have evidenced related to the arrest. Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 999 (2014). Searches based on information received from a seized cell phone must be permitted by warrant. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009).
There many levels of intrusion when it comes to stop and frisk. The first level of intrusion is a method to request evidence, allowable only when there is an objective believable reason for an intervention. Police do not necessarily need to suspect criminal activity. The second level of intrusion is known as the common-law right to inquire and is permissible only when the officer has a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. This is a larger intrusion since the officer can interfere with a citizen in an effort to gain explanatory information. However, at this level the intrusion must fall short of a forcible search. The third level of intrusion is sanctioned when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, or is about to commit an offense or misdemeanor. At this level, an officer is also authorized to make a forcible stop and detain the citizen for questioning. Furthermore, an ...
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
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 United State of America, established by the Founding Father who lead the American Revolution, accomplished many hardship in order to construct what America is today. As history established America’s future, the suffering the United State encountered through history illustrate America’s ability to identify mistakes and make changes to prevent the predictable. The 2nd Amendment was written by the Founding Father who had their rights to bear arms revoked when they believe rising up to their government was appropriate. The Twentieth Century, American’s are divided on the 2nd Amendment rights, “The right to bear arms.” To understand why the Founding Father written this Amendment, investigating the histories and current measures may help the American people gain a better understanding of gun’s rights in today’s America.
That being said, the government can still conduct searches and seizures if the follow certain steps correctly. Searches and seizures require a specific warrant written by a detached and neutral magistrate based on probable cause. This warrant requirement can be waived depending on the circumstances of the incident. Some examples of this include the automobile exception, emergencies, searches incident prior to arrest, and exigent circumstances. Police may also make warrantless arrests provided they have probable cause before the arrest.
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.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is stated in the United States Constitution as the Second Amendment. Several Americans wish to rid of guns from citizens, disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution. I shot my first gun when I was young and have always been surrounded by them. My neighbor does not leave the house without carrying one, nor does my eighteen year old friend. Never once have I felt unsafe or uneasy knowing that there was a gun close to me. The right to bare arms has become a popular local battle in which some people want to reduce the freedom of one owning firearms while others wish for the
For hundreds of years Americans have been growing up with the notion that it is a right to own a gun. Since the creation of the second amendment, people all over the United States have been able to guns for private use. Guns operated by the public are said to have a variety of uses such as, being able to protect oneself if conflict arises, grants the ability to put food on the table, and are used in competitions shooting targets against other people. But for many people guns have been seen as the root of all evil. Anti-gun users think that guns cause a variety of unexpected and innocent deaths. They also think that there are not enough laws in place that allow just about anyone to purchase a gun. The question of should guns be legal to all citizens has plagued our society. Do you think it is morally right for anyone to arm themselves and use it when they deem it to be necessary? Or do you think that the 2rd amendment seem unnecessary and outdated law that needs to be rewritten? These questions are just two of many that have thrown back and forth between pro-gun and anti-gun users.
The United States Constitution is a powerful document, outlining many rights offered and obligations assumed both by the government and citizens alike. This document allows for changes to be made through an amendment process in the House of Representatives and Senate.1 Over the years, a total of twenty-seven revisions have been passed, some much more successful than others. The 14th Amendment was written specifically to protect many American citizens, who, prior to that time, had received little, if any, security from the government. Unfortunately, while admirable in concept, the 14th Amendment has not been as effective as was intended. How has this amendment failed the citizens it was written to protect?
The First Amendment is what we chose because it covers good areas (topics) that are occurring in the world on a daily basis. Many people like the items that The First Amendment covers, and some people don't like them. Either way there are many other amendments that have been ratified by the two-thirds of the House and Senate. There are ten amendments in the constitution, but there are 17 other amendments that aren't in the constitution. Therefore, in total there are 27 amendments.
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.
When I was four, my grandpa’s gruff voice inquired “Now Pooh, what direction should the muzzle of that pistol be pointing to?” He taught me all the safety precautions when handling or firing any pistols, shotgun, or assault rifle from my first to the last. Then, on the tenth day of my freshmen year he was put into the ICU and he told me he had cancer. I went up to the hospital to see him, and my grandpa said “Pooh, I do not know how much time I have left, but I want you to get your NRA pistol instructor certification.” In August I told him I would. In October, he passed way and in November, to honor my grandfather’s wishes, I became the youngest NRA certified pistol instructor in the state of Oklahoma.While contemporary liberals fear the power available to a minority of unstable citizens who wreak havoc through gun ownership, the Second Amendment rights must be preserved because we are sworn to protect and serve the United States Constitution as citizens, fight for our freedoms just as the colonists did in the Revolutionary War, and by bearing our firearms freely, letting them ring throughout the United States.