Case Study Of The 4th Amendment

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

Is the 4th amendment still valuable in modern society since the 4th amendment can no longer be directly applied with the rise of new technology? 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”(Fourth Amendment). This amendment originally was created to protect houses from being raided uncontrollably in the mid 17th century. Obviously in the 17th century technology such as the internet did not exist yet, so important documents and information were on paper. Therefore all the significant documents were stored in a house, or building making it easy to secure them. Similarly because of the 4th Amendment their house couldn’t be searched without a warrant so all of their important documents would be safe. Fast forward 300 years many things have changed and society is still using an outdated document to judge modern society which calls for an evolved amendment. For example, the 4th Amendment is no longer directly viable since the internet and phones weren’t created during the time period the Bill of Rights was made. Ultimately the 4th Amendment is extremely valuable because it provides us the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, which can be inferred

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.

As humans evolve on earth, it has been inevitable to find solutions and create easier ways to manage and live life. Technology now promises the future and has revolutionized the everyday life of Americans. The rapid rate at which technology is evolving has left a gap in which the law has not been established in a clear manner. The Constitution is the law of the land and serves as a living document that grew up parallel to our nation. The law of the land itself has been adapted and molded as it prioritizes the rights and liberty of its citizens. Now a day women are allowed to vote and the legal age to vote is 18 as where in 1787 the constitution had established that only older men could vote. The science and technological progress happening

Rights are not always absolute. Reason being there are mandates within the constitution that prohibit certain things from being over used. For example the first amendment gives you the right to exercise your freedom of speech. However hate speech, speech that incites violence or puts another individual in danger is prohibited. And does not fall under your first amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for the search and seizure of personal property, but no warrant is necessary when the owner voluntarily consents to the search or seizure. However, an owner may revoke his or her permission prior to the completion of the search, and the court admits the evidence found prior to the owner revoking consent. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that the government may search a photocopy of a document after the owner revokes consent. The Eleventh Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether searching a mirror image copy of a computer hard drive may occur after the owner revokes consent. In United States v. Sharp, the Northern District Court of Georgia determined that although the searching methods for paper documents and computers differ, a government official may search a mirror image computer copy made during the scope of the owner’s consent.

Mapp’s conviction was overturned, and 5 Supreme Court justices found that the states were in fact bound to exclude any evidence that was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. The court justices felt that if evidence obtained through a violation of the 4th Amendment, was admissible, and then there would be no assurance against any type of unreasonable search and seizure, making the 4th Amendment essentially meaningless. After this decision, any evidence that was obtained through illegal searches would be inadmissible in the courts of every

The fourth amendment prohibits any search and seizures on a person without a warrant to give the right to privacy. No probable cause is needed for a search and frisk. In Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Circuit the defendant was arrested because he refused to give up his identity. The court found that it was necessary for the person to give up their identity because it can inform the police if that person has a mental illness, is wanted for something else, or can clear their name. In Illinois v. Wardlow the defendant ran away when he thought the police were trying to catch him for narcotics in a high crime area. The court believed that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the unprovoked flight. This case is similar because both the defendant ran

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was introduced to Congress in 1789 by James Madison, however it was not adopted until 1791, and is an extremely important amendment contained in the Bill of Rights. “In the past forty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly advanced the notion that the Fourth Amendment encompasses the common-law restrictions on searches and seizures,” (Mannheimer, M. Z., 2015, p.1, para.1). The Fourth Amendment requires governmental searches to be conducted only when a search warrant is issued, sanctioned by probable cause and supported by oath of affirmation, however, there are exceptions to this rule that are stated in the “Exclusionary Rule,” which was established in 1914. The “Exclusionary Rule” states that there are certain instances, where a search can be conducted without a warrant, such as probationary searches, plain view searches, exigent circumstance searches, border searches, and consent

The Fourth Amendment, provides protection to individuals during searches and detentions, and also prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence against an individual in criminal cases. This simply means that no authority figure can pull you over, arrest you, or search you without a valid reason. The only way that an authority figure can actually pull you over or arrest you is if you are doing something illegal, although there are a few exceptions.

Alternatively, they focused on the Fourth Amendment which does not allow any “unreasonable search and seizures”. Mapp 's lawyer also asked if the material gathered were protected by the first amendment. The legal decision ruled that Ms. Mapp 's rights were in fact violated as a result of the Cleveland Police Department 's failure to provide a warrant upon their entrance of her home. The due process is the government 's responsibility to respect, support and maintain the rights of a person who lawfully lives in the United States.

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend IV. Absent a warrant, a search may be reasonable if officers obtain consent of a third party having actual common or apparent authority over the premises or items to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). Actual common authority over property hinges on the “mutual use . . . by parties generally having joint access or control.” Id. at 171 n.7. Should actual authority be absent, the search is still reasonable if officers reasonably believe, based on facts available, that the consenting party had authority over the premises. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 (1990).

I arrived and staged on Roberts Road near the building 15 which contained room 251 and waited for Sgt. Alexander’s arrival. I informed Sgt. Alexander of my location and then advised him I saw 2 white male subjects carrying a large box that looked to be a TV box. As I turned the headlights on, I crossed Roberts Road and was able to see that one of the white male subjects was Mr. Burnette, who I knew had active warrants for his arrest.

Fourth amendment of the US constitution states that it is the right of the citizens of the nation to be secure either in person or their personal holdings like their houses or papers and effects without being searched or even can’t be sized and no one has the power to violate these rights by issuing any sort of warrants unless and until the law enforcement officer has a proper cause which intern is aided by oath, which exactly denotes what the scope of search is and the particular persons or things that can be seized.

This paper will examine the Fourth Amendment and take a closer look into what is the requirements to obtain a warrant and when there is no need for a warrant to search a civilian or his or her property. Also the Patriot Act is infringing on our fourth Amendment right to privacy.