Discussion Post 1

“Nothing is more clear than that the Fourth Amendment was meant to prevent wholesale intrusions upon the personal security of our citizenry, whether these intrusions be termed ‘arrests’ or ‘investigatory detentions.’ ” Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-727.

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

Border searches under the fourth amendment must still be carried out in a reasonable manner, but as mentioned by Yule Kim, they’re one of the few exceptions to presumptive

5. Critically discuss how much influence the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should have over the decisions of other Federal agencies on homeland security-related

The Fourth Amendment to the United States 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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

The fourth amendment gives people the right to not get illegally search. In other words someone can’t just run up to you and search you they have to have a good reason too search you.. The fourth amendment however is not guaranteed against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

After the horrific terrorist attack on the date of September 11th, 2001 the U.S has passed a law to help prevent terrorist attacks. Through the use of tapping phone lines and checking citizens Internet usage. The U.S. department of Homeland Security’s purpose was to organize the National Security Agency, the Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. The design was intended to product the people of the U.S. It allows the government to search people’s home without a warrant. The causal factors that allow the government search through without warrant are: emails, phones and search engine searches. There is a problem the 4th amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

In our past history, The United States Customs and border officials have been focused on relatively common matters of enforcing laws regarding trade and immigration, watching over agriculture and economic interests from pest and disease, and processing people, vehicles and goods. After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, the primary concern was the homeland security. The threat of terrorists and terrorist tools coming through our borders all add to an increased set of dangers to The United States. Is it the responsibility of our United States Military to defend our country from these threats? The following myths are often understood as true, when in fact they are not.

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."

The other issues that have raised concern relate to national security and unfairness. In order to protect our security, some opponents want to discourage entry by increasing patrols and surveillance and raising a wall to protect our southern border. These measures have failed in the past, and will likely do so in the future. By increasing the money we spend for added patrols and surveillance, we will only increase our costs. We should recognize that the majority of the individuals that have entered our country, by slipping across the border, are, otherwise, willing to abide by our laws for an opportunity at a better life. Their primary purpose is to improve their economic conditions, not to jeopardize our security or cause controversy with people holding legal status.

The reforming of America?s immigration policy is something that can no longer be avoided and must be dealt with as soon as possible. Years of neglect by governmental agencies and policies makers have now made this issue one of the biggest in American politics. First of it must be understood that immigration does no only effect curtain areas of the country and curtain aspect of public life but rather all of American life. Both legal and illegal immigration affect major issues such as jobs availability for all citizens, wages, education in public schools system and in general, health care issues, and the homeland security.

Implementing stringent security controls along the borders is likely to reduce the influx of illegal immigration into the United States. With the increased border security, the American government could have helped alleviate the occurrence of the 9/11 bombing. Though this strategy is essential in alleviating the influx of illegal immigrants to certain geographic areas, increased border controls in these locations have made other, less controlled areas of the border more vulnerable. Rising crime rates, discarded debris, increased apprehension rates, and growing public scrutiny in these less secure areas provide clear evidence that border security is at once a social, an economic, and a national security issue.

The functional equivalent of the border and the Fourth Amendment closely tie together in the fact that although the government has the power to conduct warrantless border searches, in the essence of the law, the Fourth Amendment strictly prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant to be present to conduct the search. Understand when mentioning “functional equivalent”, this means the final port of entry after persons and property have entered the United States. The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law. (Cornell University Law School, 2015)

When the colonists established the bill of rights in the 18th century, the fourth amendment seemed unambiguous. The government needed to respect the right for people to be “secure in their persons, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures and not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” The difference between today and eighteenth century is that many more situations have come up that weren’t around during the eighteenth century. New technologies, new threats and new circumstances have risen that may diminish the restriction on the fourth amendment. In order to protect society from new threats and circumstances in America, the Supreme Court expands their understanding of the fourth amendment to apply it to the new world.