Arguments Against The Fourth Amendment

1734 Words7 Pages

Most people know the fourth amendment as a protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The constitution its self says “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…” (). What this means in terms of a search is if law enforcement wants to search your house, vehicle or residence they must obtain permission, or a search warrant. A warrant is issued by a judge or magistrate and it will require probable cause which would be a reasonable belief or fair probability that something illegal will be found or evidence to a crime will be found. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 [1925] In …show more content…

The circumstances that are considered exigent vary, and courts have applied this exception to the fourth amendment to be applicable to an array of situations law enforcement has encountered. These situations include when someone may be harmed, evidence may be destroyed if law enforcement were to wait for a search warrant, or a suspect may escape.
Several court cases have played a role in when and where law enforcement may use the exception of exigent circumstance to conduct a search without a warrant. United States v. Santana is the case that has made it legal for law enforcement to chase a person into a residence when they were in “hot pursuit” without a warrant. Ker v. California made is legal for law enforcement to go into a residence in order to prevent the destruction of evidence. There are many more cases that help define and shape this exception and the applicability of the exception is generally a case by case …show more content…

In this case Mr. Wolf was accused of performing an illegal abortion. Police conducted a search of his office, seizing evidence to include the names of other patients. The patients were questioned and some had admitted to having abortions performed by Mr. Wolf. He was then tried and convicted of conspiracy to perform abortions. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court where the decision to incorporate the fourth amendment was made.
The Wolf v Colorado decision was a failure in some aspects. The justices decided against the idea of the exclusionary rule being incorporated with the fourth amendment. States now had to protect citizens against unreasonable search and seizures but if they failed to do so, evidence obtained was still allowed to be use in court to convict offenders. Their reasoning to not include the exclusionary rule was that it was not a requirement of the fourth

Open Document