The exclusionary rule is a deterrent against searches and seizures. Any evidence that is gained through an illegal search or seizure is now inadmissible in criminal proceedings, per the exclusionary rule. Supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that it helps prevent illegal searches and seizures against law enforcement. Those against the exclusionary rule argue that the exclusionary rule keeps criminals out of jail and there are other preventative measures such as suspending police officers without pay, dismissing them from a case, or in extreme circumstances terminating employment of officers who violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures from all government officials.
The 4th 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, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In the context of the 4th amendment, a search is considered or happens, “when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Ryan) An example of a search under the 4th amendment is forms of searches such as stip searches or visual body searches but they have to be supported by a probable cause and be conducted in a reasonable matter. A seizure of an individual under the 4th amendment means or happens , “when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the encounter, that the person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will.” (Ryan) An example
The founders of our land of the free implemented a measure to prevent dictatorships such as these that strip people of their individualism. This is our sacred Constitution, which has provisions relating to the right of privacy. Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights states that, â€œThe 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 causeâ€ (The Rights of Privacy screen 1). In other words, the government only has the right to search oneâ€™s property upon maintaining of an official warrant issued for probable cause. This being said, our founding fathers did not anticipate the internet and the
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.” In other words, it is against the law for police to search any person without probable cause and an issued warrant. (Cartoon Surveillance) This protects the privacy of the innocent people that may not be considered guilty. However, giving the people a right to a warrant is only giving them an advantage, while the police and the government have a disadvantage. Issuing warrants take away time and privilege for police. Needing a warrant may unable police to some investigations as well.
The Fourth Amendment contains some points that could be used for malicious purposes and technically still be Constitutional. For example, law enforcement officer can use a subpoena instead of a warrant, according to Your Digital Trail: Does the Fourth Amendment Protect Us? (2) Subpoenas are easier to get since they do not require a judge to determine if there is probable cause, yet there are more ways a law enforcement officer could cheat to get someone to remove his/her rights. According to Wex Legal Dictionary | The Fourth Amendment, if the person convicted confesses or agrees to nullify the effects of the Fourth Amendment, it cannot protect them. (1) Tricking someone into confessing or nullifying the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement
According to the Bill of Rights Institute the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right to not testify at trail and this stops the prosecutor, the judge and even the defendant’s lawyer can’t force the defendant to take the witness stand against their will. The Fifth Amendment states that no one maybe deprived of life, liberty or property without “due process of law” and there is two types of due process which are procedural which is fairness and substantive. According to the Fifth Amendment it protects a criminal defendant from double jeopardy and the reason’s are that it’s to prevent the government from using it’s superior resources so it would wear down and convict an innocent person. It also protects individuals from the financial,
It’s really important to know your Constitutional Rights. Throughout life, people that have a title felt like it was okay to take away people constitutional rights. Still today in some parts of the world you do not have the freedom of speech, people cannot worship who they want or either gather with a group of friends but in America you have somewhat freedom. When people say they don’t have any rights they are not telling the truth. We have rights to protect ourselves and those around us.
To “secure the general welfare.” But under the 4th Amendment of our constitution, we have the right “…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 persons or things to be seized.” So the government is violating our 4th Amendment keeping tabs on its people through the two secret programs, that were exposed by the former Central Intelligence Agency, leaker, Edward Snowden. According to Michael B Kelley (2013), Barack Obama defended the programs by saying: “"You can’t have 100% security, and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience … “the right balance” had been struck between security and privacy, and said that we are "going to have to make some choices as a society Americans.” This is something that should worry us all, it’s a dangerous choice made by people in power of our nation. Nobody feels protected/secured in a surveillance state. The nation is slowly turning similar to the book “1984” by George Orwell. Where “Big Brother” watches, records and controls every aspect of human life, including the thoughts going through your brain are considered crimes.
As for personal and public safety, the Fourth Amendment is intended for people to have the right to be secured within their personal owning. People shall have the right to object from unreasonable search and seizures without a warrant, probable cause, and without the support from oath or affirmation. I think the Fourth Amendment is important because it definitely protects your right to give up anything that is your property and what you pay for. What’s yours is yours and people, as well as law enforcers, should respect those rights because they also have that right to not give up anything. I believe that the significance of the Fourth Amendment is that people have the right to not have their belongings taken away from them without any “good
The 4th Amendment, which is considered one of the most important in detailing the privacy we are given, states that we as persons are given freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment also says that no warrants can be issued without probable cause. Generally speaking, this created that no one can be searched unless a warrant is issued, although with someone who is in pursuit of crime, a warrant will be unnecessary. This amendment was also able to create the idea that phones cannot be tapped in with unless a warrant was written, this includes any and all phones, even public phones. The 5th amendment gives us protection against self-incrimination which allows us to have privacy of personal information.