Fourth Amendment Debate

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.

The United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment applied a lesser degree of protection to motor vehicles based on being able to easily and quickly move them before a warrant can be obtained. The regulation surrounding automobiles gives them a lesser expectation of privacy and less protection under the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court held that Carney’s motor home should receive the level of constitutional protection of a motor vehicle rather than a residence, since Carney’s motor home was not in an area traditionally used for residence and was licensed to operate as a vehicle on public streets. The United States Supreme Court also held that the search was reasonable considering that the officers had probable cause

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 Fourth Amendment protects individuals from illegal search and seizures. Most search and seizures that are made without a warrant are unconstitutional and invalid; however, there are many exceptions to an amendment. According to Lawyers.com “there are several exceptions to the warrant requirement that permit warrantless searches, such as the automobile exception and a search incident to lawful arrest” (Unlawful Vehicle Search & Seizures, 2017). Officer Taylor thought a minor traffic violation occurred, therefore, the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop. In the case of Whren v. the United States, the case concluded that, “the existence of probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred establishes the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops regardless of the actual motivation of the officers involved” (U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment, 2017). Based on the Whren v. the United States case, the factor that the taillight ended up being operational doesn’t conclude the stop unjust because the officer thought the light was broken.

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.

The government does not have the right to go own your property without a warrant. It seems that the government doesn’t even care about the Amendment anymore because they are violating that Amendment in so many different cases. In 4th Amendment, it specifically 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” it means that a government official cannot go on your property, car or phone without a judge-signed warrant with probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment is another interesting Amendment which involve searches and seizure. In the U.S., cops generally require a court affirmed warrant to lead an inquiry of a private home or business and gather proof identifying with a criminal action. Portrayal from their opposing association with British powers within the colonial days, the composers of the Constitution instituted that procurement to secure natives' protection and guarantee that police did not mishandle their authority. Today, as wrongdoing battling innovation has developed more refined and police observation more complete, such laws have ended up open to different understandings by officers and the courts.

The Fourth Amendment plays a role in every American’s daily life. The Fourth Amendment in involved in our communication and texting, when a cop can perform a traffic stop, and who can enter your home. This Amendment has always played a large role in the lives of Americans, and has grown with society since it was ratified in 1789.

What is the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment expresses that individuals can hope to be insured in their people, houses, papers from unreasonable search and seizures. Unfortunately, this can turn into a gray area and I believe that different court can view this in different ways and the outcome in search and seizure cases will almost make you scratch your head. When you have search and seizure questions you should try and use for components to see if this is justified; was there a reasonable justification for the search, what is the thing that we may be searching for, and will there be any consequences for anyone during the search or seizure. Throughout the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O many questions arose in what was constituted as reasonable

Individual rights were guaranteed when James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, he wrote these first ten amendments, because the states wanted greater constitutional protection to secure these liberties. Written in the second amendment, the “right to bare arms,” has been a liberty to be debated on, many believe this right, should have never been given. However, the writing of the Bill of Rights secured our individual rights and liberties, as well as, transferring state power to the federal government. Therefore, when looking upon the society of today’s world, one cannot possibly the large impact that was made by the Bill of Rights, because still to this day we use those rights, that were written so long ago.

The Fourth Amendment is supposedly well enforced, and organization leaders and United States government taken precautions to keep Americans privacy safe. Even sources like The Washington Post reported on the chief security officer Joe Sullivan for social media site Facebook; Sullivan explained by speaking for Facebook that they “do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers” (2.1). This would be a well supported and exceptional statement if the writing did not. Although it continues on to say when Facebook is asked for data on specific individuals by a governmental organization, Joe Sullivan says that they carefully examine the request for a lawful way to oblige (2.1). One could question the morals of such

In this case there are a few issues on appeal raised by Sitz. One of the issues was did the checkpoint violate the Fourth Amendment and did it forbid the balancing test. Another issue was that did it actually fail the effectiveness part of the Brown test. Furthermore, the issue of did the sobriety checkpoint which is permitted by the United States Constitution, violate the Michigan State Constitution (supreme.justia.com n.d). There was also issues of did the sobriety checkpoint have a very high or low arrest result or rates because there were questionable deterrent value. Therefore, the lack of this information brought forward question on does the sobriety checkpoints serve a purpose and do they really stop or just simply curb drunk driving. Although, there was the issue of the violation of Fourth Amendment, there was also an issue of did it also violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well because even though Michigan Constitution affords its citizens greater rights than those provided by the federal constitution (supreme.justia.com n.d).

The Fourth Amendment was introduced in 1789, it struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American that had the experience of the principle was within reason to tell every man’s house is his castle and the citizen may fall into their category of the criminally accused to provide with protection according to the laws( http://www.britannica.com/topic/Fourth-Amendment) . The United States Constitutional law of the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both right of persons to the responsibilities of a law enforcement