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, 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.” To me, this means, in order for the American people to feel that they and their belongings are safe, only an official sworn into office can issue a warrant. This warrant can also be issued with probable cause, or reasonable belief, that some crime has been committed. Upon issuance of said warrant, the sworn official must specify exactly where police are allowed to search and the exact things or people they are allowed to look for and take in their investigation. …show more content…
I feel that this is an extremely important and still completely relevant amendment. Without the protection of the fourth amendment, no one would feel safe. The police/government could target individuals for little to no reason, enter our homes, and take whatever they pleased at any time they felt the urge to. The thought of that even being possible is scary beyond belief. I am not a criminal, and have nothing to hide, but the thought that the government could burst into my home whenever they pleased is terrifying. Not just that, but imagine the corruption that could breed. If they didn’t need probable cause, but could enter a person’s home on a whim, it would be asking for problems of corruption within those
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The Fourth Amendment requires a probable cause for arrest. Substantially, particular things are needed to legally conduct a search or seizure. This incorporates arrest, so a search, a seizure, or an arrest cannot take place without reason. Not to mention, there must be a "court order" for Apple to give the government "customer data." So, since a “court order” must be in place for Apple to give the government “customer data,” that “court order” would have to also take place for an arrest that could conceivably follow.
According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.
I can see the pros and cons of this device. It would be helpful in catching people that are texting and driving however, it is a violation of privacy. The fourth amendment sates that we are free from unreasonable search and seizure however, if you suspect someone is texting that is probable cause. If someone had probable cause that someone was texting then I do not think, it would be unreasonable to run a check. I think this tool could become a great way to prevent drivers from texting.
The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.
On the other hand, this amendment makes it strenuous to conduct surveillance without a probable cause. The Fourth Amendment was a suitable change to the Constitution because it ensures citizens’ privacy cannot be invaded, ensures citizens’ property is secure from seizure, and stipulates searches must be approved by a judge although it makes finding evidence
Before the 20th century, there were few, if any, cases based on the Fourth Amendment. However, as surveillance by law enforcers became more common, these tactics, and others, were scrutinized in court cases throughout the 20th and 21st century. Within the past 50 years there have been more and more cases held to determine whether or not a citizen’s right were being violated or if authorities were within the law. Like a story with multiple timelines, the outcome of a case disputing the fourth amendment is not always clear or predictable. PII Like many of the other amendments, already established traditions of British law supported the concept of the IV Amendment.
The First Amendment is the most important, because of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Many people think that the fourth amendment is the most important. They think this, because it is important for a person to be able to tell policemen “No” if they ask you if they could search your car or your house. I believe that the fourth amendment is really important, but you wouldn’t be able to tell the policemen “No” if you didn’t have freedom of speech. George Washington said,”If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be, like sheep to the slaughter” (“Famous Quotes Freedom of Speech”).Without freedom of speech and religion we are nothing.
Joseph, This is a great question. The main issue presented with digital evidence and the Fourth Amendment are the limitations presented during the investigation of criminal cases. The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of every citizen in the country, which makes law enforcement 's job of enforcing the law a complicated process. Also, the amendment states that only due to a reasonable cause, a search and seizure shall be performed, and most of the times after obtaining a warrant.
Is war really a battle fought between two nations or more? The oxford definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. In relation to war, racial profiling can be seen as an undeclared war. An undeclared war is a term used for disagreement fought without an official declaration. The undeclared war between male minorities and police forces is a constant issue that is being surpassed in our society.
Police officers and government employees may not search a person’s property unless they have a warrant. Some pros about the fourth amendment are privacy of citizens, secure property from
The Fourth Amendment is having the right to privacy; the police can’t go into your home without permission from the homeowners or the judge. Both of these amendments are indeed valuable to Americans because they allow us to express ourselves and be who we want to be with privacy. I believe the First Amendment is vital because it allows people to stand up for what they believe in and choose their path in life. It lets us convey with other people to express our commonalities with the world.
To begin, we need to understand the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment was created to prevent the government from breaching into our homes and convicting us of crimes based on evidence they discover within our homes. It was vital to state unreasonable searches in the constitution, and an unreasonable search is a search done without
The criminal justice system has a set of rules it follows when arresting, interrogating, and placing the accused on trial. These rules are known as procedural rights. Procedural rights are the rights of the accused/defendant, when going through the criminal justice system. They are the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (Bohm, 2018). Also, known as the Bill of Rights.
The need for security of our borders has become more prevalent since 9/11 and the use of Border Patrol has helped to ensure this security. Along with the increase of security on our nation, the increase on regulations governing not only police officers and government employees the regulations for Border Patrol have grown to ensure they are staying within the scope of their jurisdiction. Even though warrantless searches are deemed constitutional for Border Patrol, due to the amount of immigration within 100 miles of the Mexican border, warrantless searches may be deemed to be in violation of the 4th amendment because the 4th amendment states law enforcement must have a warrant or have probable cause to search a vehicle. Law enforcement agencies to include Border Patrol have been highlighted in the past years as disregarding the laws that govern through main stream media which is ever growing in this day in age. These government agencies have regulations and each department is supposed to follow the regulation in which are in accordance with the laws, however, time and time again these agents are found to be in violations of these laws.