Essay On 4th Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

The purpose for the Fourth Amendment is to protect people from intrusion of the government in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It prohibits searches and seizures unless they are conducted with probable cause and under reasonable circumstances. “The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment” (Criminal.Findlaw.com, 2013).

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. the United States, to revise the Fourth Amendment “unreasonable searches and seizures,” to cover electronic wiretaps. (Iannacci, 2015) Charles Katz a handicap basketball player conducting illegal gambling bets using three outside telephone booth (pay phones) nearby his residence to place and receive bets from gamblers. The FBI caught onto Katz’s operation, so they decided to bug the telephone booths pending investigation using the wiretaps. Katz was later detained for recorded conversations of conducting an organized illegal gambling operation. Katz defense was that the FBI surveillance on the phone booths was unconstitutional. Katz argued that his Fourth Amendment had been violated because the phone booth was made of glass, leaving him visible to the outside world with an uninvited ear should be protected under the Fourth Amendment because it’s a way of private communication. However, the clause that applies to all

test, the exclusionary rule, and pertaining to Berger vs. New York, this case examined whether or not evidence obtained by eavesdropping could be used in court. So back to one of my previous thoughts that even if the founder fathers could not view the challenges that the future would bring their amendments, we as a people, through a number of different circumstances, have come up with new parts to apply to the amendments that keep them pertinent in our modern society. Also aside from the exclusionary rule which helps the citizens if evidence is illegally obtained that it cannot be used against them in court, but in the mid 1980s the good faith exception was first instituted. This was created to help the police force or any force in use of a warrant but held an error outside of their control. In short, this helped if the warrant held a mistake but it was not the policemen’s fault so even if evidence was obtained it can still be used in court even with a flawed warrant.

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined the Fourth Amendment to mean that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy for your personal information as well.” Take the United States v. Leon opinion for example; the Judge considered the illegal evidence obtained by law enforcement to be admissible because it was collected by “good faith”. Yet, the warrant was later founded to be flawed. The Rutherford Institute also states , “The Supreme Court has also held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in certain situations: (1) probation or parole revocation hearings; (2) tax hearings; (3) deportation hearings; (4) when government officials illegally seize evidence outside the United States; (5) when a “private actor” (i.e., not a government employee) illegally seized the evidence; or (6) when the illegally seized evidence is used to impeach the defendant’s

The Fourth Amendment provides citizen the freedom of privacy. The expectation of privacy is covered under the Fourth Amendment in order to protect this privacy. I strongly believe that an officer should obtain a search warrant in order to violate one's right to privacy when crossing the boundary of personal items. By searching an individual backpack, purse or wallet, one's privacy is invaded. According to the court in People v. Cregan personal items such as cigarette packs (found in pockets), wallets, or purses may be searched due to these items being inaccessibility of the individual at the time of an arrest. This ruling allows officers to violate one's privacy by searching these items; even though, the items are personal to the individual.

Katz v. United States was held in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967. Charles Katz was convicted of wagering based on evidence presented by the FBI. They planted devices on a public phone booth to record his conversations. This case violated the fourth amendment, which is our right to privacy Also the first and fifth amendments deal with our right to privacy as well. The fourth amendment states that we have the ?right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? (Legal Information Institute, 2015).

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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 ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to allow for a number of exceptions to this requirement where there are exigent circumstances.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution holds grave importance for the citizens of the United States of America. This amendment of the Constitution is exceptionally important due to the fact, that it protects citizens from unreasonable searches or seizures. However, the phrase, “reasonable expectation of privacy” is a different aspect that is pertinent to the evolution of the Fourth Amendment, and Riley v. California. To dissect this phrase, reasonable is the important aspect here, this is where the court must decide what is and what is not reasonable, in relation to the Fourth Amendment. Privacy, on the other hand, seems to be defined inadequately. (Baude & Stern, 2016). Within this, importance comes from the actual warrant requirement

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

With all of our technology advances today, for example, drones, it is hard for the laws to keep up to date on what is legal and what is illegal. Our privacy is one of those things that technology is able to invade. With technology, it is getting easier and easier to invade people’s privacy and their personal data. People want to feel safe and secure if they want to share their data with others and not have to worry if someone is trying to steal the data. If people knew that there data is more secured and safe to tell other people then they would share their ideas about things more and not have to worry that someone will steal it. Some say that we should add privacy to the fourth amendment so people can’t invade their personal life or their

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) The Court held that a defendant must prove there is a legitimate expectation of privacy for a search to be challenged.

This case has become the precedent to many other cases that have followed in its likeliness. It presented the power of the fourth amendment while also demonstrating the power of lien laws in relation to hotels/ motels. It can be said that although this was not a normal circumstance the law did support the hotel owner concerning the recovery of the stolen goods. Throughout the years there have been many different rulings in relation to lien laws, but this case concreted the rules in relation to the privacy laws of guests and

In 1967, the petitioner Charles Katz was charged in violating 18 U.S.C. § 1084 for transmitting illegal gambling information from a payphone booth from the city of Los Angeles to individuals in Boston and Miami (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)). The FBI had been aware of Katz illegal activities after following him extensively, and in an effort to bring evidence against him, placed an electronic eavesdropping device on the phone booth he had made calls from during previous events. Once the FBI obtained enough evidence to convict him on grounds of illegal sharing of gambling information, the petitioner Katz was arrested. The FBI agents pursuing the case against Katz had adhered to requirements set for applying wiretaps, but had not sought a warrant to allow the use, nor did these individuals report their results to a judge (Katz v. United States Significance). The case brought to question the right to privacy in public space, and if that right extended to pay phone booths, and also if a search warrant necessary is necessary without physical intrusion to gain information.

The right to privacy was not established as a constitutional doctrine until after the result of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. The court decision was based on the interpretation of several amendments within the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly state anything about the right to privacy, a combination of its sections was used as the framework for establishing the right (“Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),” 2007).