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
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.
For example, say that someone in North Korea was to speak negatively about the North Korean government. The government would have no trouble or any setbacks in searching through the persons house without a warrant. Compared to this, the authorities of the United States require for warrants to search through a suspect’s house and only if the reason for doing this is logical. Amendments five and six serve for those that are convicted of crimes. People cannot be convicted for the same crime twice and must be treated to an equal trial.
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.
In this small country a terrorist attack may happen at any time and in any place. Therefore, when entering a shopping mall, hospital, or school, the security guard asks to search the contents of your bag. We have never thought that it was an encroachment on our freedom or invasion of privacy because in these circumstances it was necessary for our protection. Obviously, a government has to protect the lives of its citizens. Nowadays, many people in the United States spend too much time discussing the balance between security and liberty.
Our founding fathers created the Bill Of Rights which are the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. One of the most important amendments is the Fourth Amendment. 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”(p. 11). What are our founding fathers were trying to do is keep our country from a police state, a state in which law enforcement could enter our homes without probable cause. This protection provides the citizens of the
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
Defense attorneys are confronted with the new regulation “special administrative measure” (SAM) as it seemed to overlook the underlying ethical issue. Defense attorneys fully abide by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, they abide by Rule 1.6, which is the requirement of confidentiality. The rule prohibits the use of attorney-client communication as evidence before a court of law. The ethical rule demands that “a lawyer shall not reveal information to the representation of the client.” The rule ensures that the information that is exchanged by the attorney and client is confidential and that it’s not presented in court or to anyone else.
The exclusionary rule was made to protect people 's rights and ensure justice in court but there are exceptions. One exception to the exclusionary rule is inevitable discovery. The law of inevitable discovery states that even if evidence is obtained illegally, it can still be used against someone in court if the evidence was bound to be found one way or another. For example, if the police were searching for a fugitive and broke into someone 's house without a search warrant because they believed the criminal was inside the house, and find the criminal they can still arrest him because sooner or later they would of gotten a warrant to go inside the house they suspected him to be in. If the police have to go inside someone 's home to find an
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.