Arguments Against The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment, is separated into two clauses. The first clause, deals with unreasonable searches and seizures and is known as the Reasonableness Clause. It states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures….” (U.S. Const. Amend. IV). In other words Americans have a right to feel safe in their homes and not have to worry about the government intruding on them. Additionally, the government can’t arrest a person or search their

The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

The 4th amendment does not always guaranteed to all search and seizures but most of the time it prevents you from getting illegally search and seizure. Other supporters believe law enforcement should not be able to search you anytime because it’s your privacy. It also takes a long time and it's not worth your time.

To understand this situation I decided to look up cases that reflect on their fourth amendment being violated. The case that stood out to me the most was Mapp vs. Ohio. In 1957, police officers received an anonymous tip that Mapp was hiding a wanted man because he needed to be questioned for a bombing. Then Police officers went to Mapp’s house and wanted to search her house. She then denied them entry, because she needed to see a warrant to let them in. After some hours went by, the police officers forcibly entered her home and recalled that they received a warrant. Then they proceeded with the search and found some books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. Then during her court trial she appealed her sentence, because they did not receive a valid search warrant and the police officers violated her rights. Even though they found her having possessions that were illegal, they could not hold it against her. The issues with search and seizure are usually towards the issue of violating our rights. One of the rights that we are getting violated is the right if privacy. It is the interest in being free from observation that matters to us, because they always try to know what people are saying and or doing without probable cause.

1. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth Amendment provides, "[t]he 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."

One of the many freedoms we enjoy, as Americans is the right that protects us from unreasonable search and seizures; as well as the necessity for a search warrant when law enforcement wishes to search someone’s property. This right is known as the Fourth Amendment and it contains two clauses: the first one is the reasonableness clause, which states that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The second part is the warrant clause, which states that a warrant must be issued upon the finding of probable cause. It must then be supported by an affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and what us intending to be found.

The Fourth Amendment is the right for people to be secure in their homes, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. The amendment also states that warrants will not be issued unless they are issued under probable cause. This amendment is the biggest factor in the case of Omaha Herald v. Police, however, this case cannot as easily be defined by the Fourth Amendment can be and there are arguments and cases which can be made for both sides.

The Fourth Amendment states; ” the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment protects the individual from unreasonable police intrusion. The amendment is intended to guarantee all individuals in America, whether they’re here legally or illegally, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of their person and the places in which they have a reasonable privacy

The right against improbable searches and seizures is often seen as a right that can easily be infringed upon and justified with the concept of maintaining the general welfare of this country and its people. One does not posses a comprehensive right to privacy against the invasion of personal belongings or files like many believe, but there are certain restrictions on what of one’s personal belongings can be accessed through ex officio approbations. An example of legal things riding close to the line of infringing on one’s fourth amendment right is search and seizer if warranted by probable cause according to the Huffington Post. Meaning that one’s private information, including someone’s home and person, can be searched if there is a plausible suspicion to the endangerment to others. The issue that many have with

Now, of something is in plain view for a police officer to see, and it is known to be illegal, then the police officer is allowed to search further without a warrant. Search under the Fourth Amendment is when a person of the government violates a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Strip searches and visual body cavity searches are supported under the fourth amendment when there is probable cause, and are done under a reasonable manner (Legal Information Institute). Dog-sniff inspection is not valid under the Fourth Amendment if it violates a expectation of privacy, but surveillance is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. Seizure of a person under the Fourth is when a police officer’s conduct would be communicated to a reasonable person, and by taking into account the issues surrounding the encounter…”and that person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will” (Legal Information Institute).

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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 (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

The Fourth Amendment reads, “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” ("Fourth Amendment legal definition of Fourth Amendment. Fourth Amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary", n.d.). The fourth amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” (Gardner & Anderson, 2012, p.