The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures from all government officials. However, the Fourth Amendment is not an assurance against all search and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable by the law. According to the Legal Information institute an unreasonable search is any search conducted by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and/or “without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present.” () If any evidence is found during an illegal search and seizure then the evidence is
A public school cannot suspend a student with no notice or hearing because it infringes on his or her rights. The specific amendments broken by the public school officials are primarily the fifth and sixth. Public schools are not allowed to take away rights and liberties given to the American people. The suspended student was denied his rights to due process and his right to formal informant of crime committed. A liberty that every American enjoys is upon crime committed they are awarded a hearing/trial in order to promote fairness.
Based upon my research, the exclusionary rule should not apply to an illegal arrest. The exclusionary rule was a court created deterrent and remedy, to keep law enforcement from violating the Fourth Amendment when conducting searches and seizures ("The Fourth Amendment And The Exclusionary Rule - Findlaw"). It is mainly used to exclude incriminating evidence that was gathered illegally to be introduced into the court as evidence against a person. The rule was developed to give individual’s rights and civil liberties the maximum protection from improper conduct and procedures from law enforcement ("The Fourth Amendment And The Exclusionary Rule - Findlaw"). Even when an illegal arrest occurs does not necessarily mean that all errors will justify invoking the exclusionary rule.
If someone does not allow you to touch their things it is probably because it is special to them or to someone else.They also could call the police. Another reason is because you could get arrested and the person going onto the property could not be very nice so you should need a warrant to search someone else’s property. “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.” I get why people say they should not need a warrant because when someone walks onto someone 's property they can just say no or please go, but it would be easier for the person to just ask for a warrant and if they do not have one they should tell them to go away. When someone walks onto your property and they do not have the right to be there they would need a warrant because they might not know them. They also could have told them to go away already so they should ask for a warrant the first time and if they do not have one they should not come back and if they come back again they should call the police because they might keep coming
The Fourth Amendment protects American citizens from unlawful searches and seizures. Although, if a government agency has a lawful reason the court will present them with a search warrant. This Amendment protects American Citizens from having their personal property searched by the government without a search warrant. With the Fourth Amendment American citizens feel safe and secure from unlawful searches and seizures. The amendment also prevents worry of government trespassing without a warrant.
"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". The 4th amendment was made based on the Founding Fathers experience with the Kings agents and the all purpose rit of assistances that they used abusively. Without the 4th amendment, we would be at the will of the police because they could come into our household, search anything and take whatever they want. "A reasonable expatiation of privacy" the 4th amendment secures the protection of the people
The court should uphold Comerford’s conviction on the basis of the following discussion. In analyzing whether or not a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred, it is necessary to determine if a search has occurred in the first place. Within the scope of the Fourth Amendment, a search constitutes an officer examining someone’s person, home, papers, or effects to find evidence of a crime. In other terms, a search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society readily recognizes as reasonable, as defined in Kyllo v. United States. Additionally, as further discussed in Kyllo v. United States, “obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of a home that could not otherwise have been obtained
Amendments are an important system in America without amendments it would be totally different. An example, alcohol would still be prohibited if the 21st amendment didn’t repeal the 18th amendment. What an amendment means is an article added to the constitution. The 4th amendment stands out to me the most and it 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 better words the amendment means it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a search warrant by a neutral judge. The history behind this amendment is it was introduced on December 15, 1791 by our founders.
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.
Banned Books are books that are prohibited by law or to which free access is not permitted by other means. Banning books is against the writers right for freedom of speech, which is the first amendment. Students have the right to read, reading is not illegal, so why ban books? If a reader is mature enough to handle some curse words or bad behavior then they should be able to read banned books. Some people believe books should not be banned in schools/libraries but just because you do not like it does not mean it should be taken away, that is the authors freedom of speech.
On the point of officer safety Riley argued that the data on a cell phone could not be used as a weapon to endanger officer safety or to aid the arrestee 's escape from custody. An officer could physically search the cell phone and it 's case for weapons, such as a razor blade. The State countered that the suspect 's cell phone could be used to call associates to aid him, which would affect officer safety. Allowing the officer to search the cell phone without a warrant might give him/her warning that someone is coming. On the point of protecting evidence from concealment or destruction, Riley argued that once a cell phone has been seized, there is no need for the officer to search the digital contents to protect it.
Document D states “Thermal imaging is extrasensory and permits the police to “see” what is invisible to the naked eye.”If the use of technology goes heightens the body 's natural ability it will require citizens to take severe measures to protect privacy, and will crumble the promise of privacy in the home insured by the fourth amendment. One should not have to take irregular precautions to protect what can’t be felt, heard, tasted, or smelled due to new technologies. Moreover the fourth amendment does not require
United States, 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009). And in order to make effective the fundamental constitutional guarantees of sanctity of the home and inviolability of the person, the United States Supreme Court has held that evidence seized during an unlawful search could not constitute proof against the victim of the search. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 (1963). And in Montoya de Hernandez, the court explained that "some searches of property are so destructive," "particularly offensive," or overly intrusive in the manner in which they are carried out as to require particularized suspicion, such as the present case. 473 U.S. 531(1985).
And if those considered free of criminal involvement may nevertheless be searched or inspected under civil statutes, it is difficult to understand why the Fourth Amendment would prevent entry onto their property to recover evidence of a crime not committed by them but by others. As we understand the structure and language of the Fourth Amendment and our cases expounding it, valid warrants to search property may be issued when it is satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises. The Fourth Amendment has itself struck the balance between privacy and public need, and there is no occasion or justification for a court to revise the Amendment and strike a new balance by denying the search warrant in the circumstances present here and by insisting that the investigation proceed by subpoena duces tecum, whether on the theory that the latter is a less intrusive alternative or
Describe one argument that supports “stop and frisk” policies. One argument that supports “stop and frisk” is the protection of the law enforcement and the community (Ivers, 2013). Ivers mention, “Chief Justice Earl Warren made clear that the "stop and frisk" exception was based on the need to protect police officers from criminal suspects carrying weapons” (2013). If there’s probable cause to stop a citizen, law enforcement should make sure the citizen they have stopped is not going to cause them bodily harm. The only way to do this is to search the individual to make sure he or she is not carrying a firearm, knife or any object that can be used to inflict physical harm to the law enforcement.