Essay On 4th Amendment

In the case of Charles Katz versus United States, the petitioner was convicted for violation the federal by transmitting wagering information from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. Federal agents had a suspicion that the suspect was transferring gambling information to his clients throughout other states. The federal agents took initiative by creating an eavesdropping device on a public phone booth that have been used by Katz. Katz stated to the Court of Appeals that the evidence used against him was a violation of his Fourth Amendment. The evidence presented to the Court of Appeals was not admissible, so the Certiorari was settled. The United States Supreme Court decided that Katz was protected from the Fourth Amendment for his conversation. The Court stated that using a public phone is considered to be private and it is important for any government officials to have probable cause or evidence that proves there is illegal activity.

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

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).

Charles Katz entered a telephone booth, closed the door, and made a telephone call to place an unlawful gambling wager. The FBI suspecting illegal transmission and had unbeknownst to Katz attached a recording device outside the phone booth to ease drop and record his telephone conversation. Katz was convicted on an eight-count indictment based on the recordings captured from the recording box. He challenged his conviction based on his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the FBI. The Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit which upheld the conviction on the grounds that there was no physical intrusion. The Court ruled with Katz stating the FBI had violated his reasonable expectation of privacy.

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

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

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

Drug Searches are recently being questioned by students, teachers, parents, and administrators. The use of Dogs sniffing out drugs, in schools across America. Questions rise through the cracks asking if it is a violation of American rights. The fourth amendment guarantees “the right of the people to secure to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (Ehlenberger, 31-35).” Administration has no justifiable reason to conduct random searches, thus breaking the fourth amendment. A myriad of court cases has concluded that there are questions about what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Cases brought to court, for example, two students told a teacher about another student will be bringing

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 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

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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments

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.

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.

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.