ipl-logo

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

Show More
Related
510 Words | 3 Pages

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Read More
316 Words | 2 Pages

In Wolf vs. Colorado the Supreme Court had decided that it did not. Illegally obtained evidence could be used in trials because the 4th amendment did not apply to states. The principle became known as the exclusionary

Read More
558 Words | 3 Pages

The case of Florida versus Jardines was heard before the Supreme Court on October 31, 2012 and a decision was made on March 26, 2013. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jardines. This case challenged the fundamental core of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The ruling of this case has impacted how law officials handle searches and the use of drug dogs. This case also challenged the boundary line of where personal property starts.

Read More
563 Words | 3 Pages

In this period, the Fourth Amendment was strongly upheld along with the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is made so that police couldn't use any illegally-obtained evidence to convict a defendant. Chief Justice Earl Warren brought the exclusionary rule from local to state-level in the court case of Mapp v. Ohio. In this case, officers forced their way into a home without a search warrant because they suspected Dollree Mapp of hiding an alleged bomber, where they collected evidence so they could use it against him in court. The exclusionary rule was enforced, making none of the evidence found applicable to be used against Mapp in court.

Read More
992 Words | 4 Pages

Evidence obtained without a search warrant is not admissible in federal court, so it should not be admissible in state courts either. After all of this discussion, the court decided that the “exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth

Read More
153 Words | 1 Pages

Several exceptions to the Fourth amendment have been made over the past several decades, with some being understandable and others being questionable. Consenting to a search results in not needing a warrant, though this poses many exceptions and complications, i.e. the scope of the consent given, whether consent is voluntarily specified, or whether a person has the right to consent to a search of another's property. Another understandable exception is the “plain view” doctrine, where an officer (acting in legal presence) can seize plain view objects. The stipulation to this is that the officer must have had probable clause that the objects seized are contraband. Exigent circumstances, where it would be harmful or impractical to obtain a warrant

Read More
469 Words | 2 Pages

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.

Read More
138 Words | 1 Pages

The Fourth Amendment the Search and Seizure amendment was first passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 (National Constitution Center) that states the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (National Constitution Center). For the first one hundred years after this amendment was This amendment of the Constitution has been used by both civilians and governmental officials as proof of why they believe an incident that occurred was fair, or unfair. However, there have been times when deciding the fairness or unfairness has not been crystal clear. For instance, the case of Tennessee v. Garner that was first argued on October 30, 1984, and later decided upon on March

Read More
70 Words | 1 Pages

Unreasonable search and seizure is an asset in this country. It is an asset in this country because the police have to have rules also. If America did away with the fourth Amendment there would not be any crime because the police will be able to arrest anyone without probable cause. The police would have such much power that people will be afraid to even drive through a stop sign.

Read More
234 Words | 1 Pages

In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

Read More
210 Words | 1 Pages

The fourth amendment can be beneficial but, it can also to some U.S. citizens be invasion of privacy. The fourth amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” some U.S. citizens believe that Law Enforcement, the Government and the NSA are violating the required guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. The NSA is conducted a mass U.S. surveillance not to believe specific individuals may be engaging in terrorist activity, but instead to believe all of us may be engaging in such activity. The government mass surveillance proves that U.S. citizens are considered suspects at all times. With the Patriot Act the NSA has access to

Read More
1034 Words | 5 Pages

In the United States, there are many times in which police officers conduct illegal searched and seizures, in hopes of finding evidence that will get an accused a conviction. Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals have a right to be protected from such situations. In 1957, there was a case in which police received a tip from an informant in regard to a bombing and the suspect responsible for the recent bombings (Peak, K. & Everett, P., 2016). The police went to the woman's home and forced themselves in to obtain any evidence that they could find. Evidence was found at the home and the woman was later convicted.

Read More
361 Words | 2 Pages

Everyday people are accused of doing things they did or didn’t do and police go through their things, the fourth amendment protects people from being searched. The fourth amendment has helped many people in the U.S.A. everyday. Its meaning and purpose is to protect U.S. citizens belongings. Which has an enduring impact on lots of peoples lives.

Read More
752 Words | 4 Pages

In addition, the law enforcement only needs to be “supported by a probable cause” or an “arrest warrant,” to search a United States citizen. Although, the police officer could arrest a suspect to stop them from running away or to preserve evidence. Besides the Fourth Amendment is still beneficial for all United States

Read More
1103 Words | 5 Pages

No warrants shall be issue but upon probable cause, it must be supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized. In reality, there are always other ways to obtaining a search warrant. The 4th admendment says tha the search must be executed reasonably. Usually the federal agents can execute warrants. State and local ifficers can help the feds even if they working outside their jurisdiction as long as the federal agent remains in charge of the execution of the search.

Read More

More about Arguments Against The Fourth Amendment

Open Document