First Amendment And Search And Seizure

Search and seizure has been a big issue in USA. According to the law, the Bill of rights actually provides individual guarantees, in the fourth amendment’s against unwarranted searches and seizures. But there were some exceptions. (DLK) v. United States was one of them. They did broke the violation of fourth amendment’s law, but that doesn’t mean they went too far at the case. It just had some strong evidence like the Carroll case. Therefore, I believe that the government should use the new technology.

The First Amendment states that “everybody has freedom of speech, press, and religion.” The First Amendment allows us, as U.S. citizens to speak freely about our feelings throughout the government. The First Amendment could possibly be the most important in the whole Bill of Rights. This amendment affects us in our daily life, whether we're teenagers or adults

Neil Gaiman once said, “The current total of countries in the world with First Amendments is one. You have guaranteed the freedom of speech. Other countries don’t have that.” At the time of the amendments’ creation, a vast majority of operating countries had not yet granted their people such freedoms. Granting every citizen of the United States this right seemed to have been an important landmark in this nation’s history. Along with others, this right is declared to the people in the first amendment of the constitution. The first amendment is the most important because it grants people freedom of speech, prohibits prior restraint, and declares the right to peaceable assembly.

The United States Constitution affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always

The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791.

Although during the time of the presidency of George Washington (1788-1797) many changes within the American political party system occurred, his election (1788-1789) itself did not foster significant change and instead maintained continuity in the existence of political division; thus it can not be a referred to as a turning point in the American political party system. Strong sentiments from the Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions of the Constitution of 1787 such as national versus state supremacy of power, the necessity of a Bill of Rights, as well as federal taxes met by rebellion continued after George Washington’s election. As Patriots embraced independence in 1776 they envisioned a central government with limited power. The Articles

These exceptions are indeed consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure for the previously stated reasons. With regards to open field searches the court finds that the Fourth Amendment only protects the privacy of the individual and their property within a close proximity to the curtilage of their home. Warrantless search of an open field amounts to little more than trespassing rather than a violation of a constitutional right. With regards to the search of objects in plain view. The court has held that objects in plain view have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy simply, and clearly because of the fact that the owner of these personal effects has not afforded the kind of privacy over these

Because of the new technology boom, over the years the courts are being bombarded with request, for upholding or appealing, in what applies and does not apply, to the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is within the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment, clearly states people have a right to be secure in their privacy, in their own persons, own homes, and their own papers and their personal effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, if there is probable cause of criminal or harmful intent being committed with a particular person or persons, than warrants can be issues with the written out plan of what is exactly going to be searched and exactly whom.

When is a search and seizure reasonable? John Vile clearly explains the origination of the Fourth Amendment and why it was created at the time of the creation of the Constitution, ¨Like the amendment that precedes it, the Fourth Amendment was largely motivated by abuses of the British when they ruled America. They had used general warrants, or so-called writs of assistance, in tracking down customs violations in the colonies. A number of states subsequently adopted provisions against such warrants, and ratifying conventions in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina all proposed amendments dealing with the subject¨(Vile). At first, the forefathers of our country created the Fourth Amendment so that the British could not infringe on the colonists privacy. The thought of privacy within schools was not even something that was of concern at the time of the creation of the Constitution. As time has gone on, our country has made advancements that our founding fathers could never have foreseen, and has left our current government to interpret the Fourth Amendment themselves. The Fourth Amendment is detrimental when it comes to someone’s privacy, especially in a school environment. It is valuable to students and teachers alike, without it teachers and staff members would be able to search a student’s belongings without a reason or warrant. The Fourth Amendment is definitely viable in the school environment because it places regulations on what the staff in the schools can do without

The first Amendment gives the citizens the freedom to speech, religion, to assemble, and to petition.

Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in Staten Island, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in North Charleston and, most recently, Freddie Gray in Baltimore have dominated the headlines this entire school year. These men and their stories provide the basis for claims of racially discriminatory treatment of African Americans at the hands of the police. It is true that each of the stories surrounding these men is different, but the one unifying theme is that police around the country are interpreting our Constitutional rights in a way that is insufficient to protect African Americans and the population in general. This paper will explore one Constitutional right— the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures--and examine how one Supreme Court decision that narrowed the scope of the 4th Amendment and unintentionally created a mechanism by which the rights of citizens could be unfairly impeded by police.

We Americans are very fortunate that we have one of the top ten amendments that grant us the right to our privacy not being violated. The Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause focuses primarily on privacy; and this is enforced to ensure that citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not matter what level of law enforcement jurisdiction an officer is apart of, whether it be State or Federal they are not allowed to violate this right. This particular amendment has been ameliorated many times, and that is to meet the needs of the American people. This paper shall discuss the following: the history and purpose of the Fourth Amendment, an explanation of whether or not the United States requires police to

Are you familiar with the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution? The Founders of our American government created the Bill of Rights to protect our individual liberties. They greatly believed in the significance of the overall creation of these particular rights, which happens to be the basic freedoms of us Americans. However, our government has compromised on these distinct liberties in the name of security and general welfare in various ways.

Evidence obtained illegally by state officials is inadmissible in state court. When the government invades a person’s privacy in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, any evidence obtained by that invasion is unconstitutional. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886). As a result, in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), this court held that evidence derived from an unreasonable search and seizure was inadmissible in federal courts, because excluding such evidence was the only way to vindicate the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), the Court concluded that despite the fact that the Fourth Amendment was incorporated against the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the exclusionary principle was “not an essential ingredient of the right.” Thus, states were not prohibited from admitting evidence derived from an unreasonable search and seizure.

The first amendment insure the freedom of peaceful assemblies and gatherings.  This help people express themselves publicly to prove their points without worry of being arrested or questioned. freedom of Petition in which one has the right to present recourse to the government without  any fear of the effect