Breaking The Fourth Amendment

• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which was established in the seventeenth and eighteenth century English common law. Aside from the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to a strong public reaction from some cases back in the 1760s. Two of these cases happened in England and one case happened in the colonies. These cases involved some pamphleteers who would pass out pamphlets to the public in order to spread their word around. These pamphlets however ridiculed the king and his ministers. After finding this out the king issued warrants to have the pamphleteer’s homes ransacked and stripped of all their books and papers. Even back then the pamphleteers knew that their rights

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) which is followed by the United States Constitution belongs to the part of the Bill of Rights and will protect each and every individual from being compelled to witnesses against themselves in all sorts of criminal cases. "Pleading the Fifth" is a sort of informal term used generally for invoking the right which allows the witnesses to decline the chance of answering the questions which may lead the answers that might incriminate them, and basically it wouldn’t provide any criteria to suffer a penalty to propound the right. This sort of evidentiary privilege makes sure that defendants generally the accused cannot be coercing to become the witnesses at their own trials. If, however, by any

The Fourth Amendment was added on December 15, 1791, and ensured that it would protect citizens from arbitrary invasions, unlawful detainments, and a citizen’s right to privacy in the United States. Throughout modern America, the Fourth would should up in various landmark court cases around the country and establish itself as one of the most fundamental rights a person can possess. Citizens have the right to feel safe in their homes, as well as being safe around their own town, but what would happen if you were not at your residence and police wanted to search your home? This can be seen in the court case Weeks v. United States.

Chapter seven of the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, and Jonathon Kingsbury, goes into extensive detail on the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. To briefly sum up, the fourth amendment was put into place to help protect United States citizens against unreasonable or unlawful use of search and seizures (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 198-199). That being aforementioned, many individuals believe that there are various exceptions to the fourth amendment. Is this belief true? According to the article titled, Another Hit to the Fourth Amendment by the New York Times Editorial Board,

The Bill of Rights is a necessary piece of the Constitution, written to protect the people of the United States of America. The fourth amendment in particular is designed to protect one from unreasonable searches and seizures of ones property. A search or seizure is considered unreasonable without an issued search warrant. However, a peace officer may search without having a search warrant if there is probable cause. According to Cornell University Law School “The Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure of electronic devices.” The fourth amendment does have rules set for protection of telephonic and electronic activities requiring search warrants, but the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center has altered this law.

As you all now Hillary Clinton is running for president but I bet what you didn't know is she wants to ban guns all over the United States of America (U.S.A [U.S]). Now I bet your wondering "why is she doing this" well she thinks that "guns/arms kill men" instead of "men kill men". Also the reason why the title is named "Hillary C. breaking the 2nd Amendment" is because she .... well she just is ,because the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution (note: one of the most valuable piecing of writing in all of the U.S.A) states "we have the right to bear arms" which means any where in the U.S people have the right whether to use or not use guns and Hillary is trying to change that. The solution

The Fourth Amendment allows U.S. citizen to feel secure. And that security is not going to change because the fourth amendment is “set in stone” (salon.com, 2013). Obama did speak on the security of phone calls and he said the government looks at the duration phone calls and their numbers. However, he did go on to say “This program, by the way, is fully overseen not just by Congress, but by the FISA Court, a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch, or government generally, is not abusing them and that they’re — it’s being out consistent with the Constitution and rule of law” (www.fednews.com). The Judicial Oversight on the information that the government receives allows citizens to

The Fourth Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights on September 5, 1789, but it was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. The government cannot arrest a person if they have committed a crime. It also goes to the government as well. The Fourth or IV Amendment is a well known law because the police can’t search you, it give you protection and you won't be arrested if you say no to a policeman that they can search you.

We are losing our privacy day in and day out, are you ok with that? The fourth amendment unreasonable search and seizure is being threatened today. We are losing our rights from the very own people who swore an oath that quotes “I will always uphold the constitution,” these are the same policemen that you see in video evidence of them violating our rights. For decades at&t a phone company that makes their customers believe that they can be trusted and feel like they have some sort of privacy, helped the NSA with surveillance on phone calls and internet traffic. Are we really still protected by our rights, has the people that were meant to protect us turned their back on us, has the phone companies that violated

It was October 12, 2001, in the House of Representatives, A sickly sight, politicians gathered around the constitution, like vultures over its prey, was slanting over their chairs as the president George Bush walked to the bill, We were waiting outside the building, a row of protestors voiced their opinions like small animals. The politicians looked at the constitution, then at the fourth amendment, these were the condemned rights, due to be violated within the next week or two.

These pursuits are regularly unsuccessful on getting the criminals, and instead this policy is going against the 4th Amendment. Regarding the Bill of Rights the 4th Amendment is what gives us the citizens the right to be safe and secure in our personal space and also it protects us against any unreasonable searches without any documentation or probable

Some people are saying that letting the government go through all your texts, emails, and call are violating the Fourth Amendment. In some cases I do feel that they are but in others I don't. On one side I feel that the government just wants to project the US form another attack like 9/11. But I also feel that you really don't have any secrets from the government because of them going through everything you've sent.

The amendment that I would like to change is the “Fourth amendment.” Right now the “Fourth amendment” means “limited on searches and seizures” (Sidlow/Henschen 87). If I have the authority to change the “Fourth amendment,” then I would modify the “search and seizures” to be no limit for professional criminals. It is because professional criminals can outsmart the police and they could possibly hide their weapons and drugs somewhere around the area. For safety reason, it is better to be safe than sorry. Victims may look innocent, but they could hide something illegally from the police. For an example, if the victim refuses to let the police search his or her car, the police would search the car anyway, but the police cannot use the evidence

This a direct violation of of the fourth amendment in the Bill of rights. This amendment states that there is no search or seizures without warrants. Therefore I as a citizen of the United States of America am allowed to have my personal property in my personal bag without it being searched or taken away from me. This was one of the most important laws to create to the founding fathers who were tired of unwarranted arrest and seizure of possession. So, i believe this is unconstitutional and a violation of my civil and unalienable rights ( that means no person can take them away).