Fourth Amendment Rights

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).)

As governed by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, we possess the right to be secure in our houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The

The 4th amendment, search and seizure causes a lot of problems. Search and Seizure is the rights that police have when they enter in a home. The standard for conducting a warrantless search, probable cause, is the same standard necessary for a warrant to issue. An illegal search or illegal seizure is a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, and any evidence seized must be excluded from trial. Normally police need a search warrant to enter into a home unless they get the consent to enter in the home without one they normally don't go go into a home without anything. A terry pat is when a police officer can detain or conduct a reasonable search for weapons where the officer has the reason to believe the person is armed. Auto stops is

On his website, a Utah DUI Attorney, David Rosenbloom speaks about violations of the Fourth Amendment.  He states that police officers “pay little attention to the fourth amendment… [because] it is not a self-enforcing right, such as the freedom of speech” (Rosenbloom).  In short, if a citizen believes his or her rights were violated and they were illegally searched/things were seized from them, they must “ask a court to examine the case and apply the fourth

Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of certain papers, books, documents etc. Rules are not violated in it. There must be probable reason because in order to arrest a particular person without a search warrant. It possesses an oath or affirmation from the government. It has two fundamental rights as Right to privacy and Right to freedom. Search occurs when it has a correct reason that was obligated by the government people. Private individuals are violated from this amendment. A seizure happens the owner must has a right documents with him on his own property, if not the documents is seized and the person gets arrested. Sometimes the property belongs to other possessor but in mistake reasonable person gets involved in the task. The banning of unreasonable searches can violate many things to be happen.

1. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution 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, 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.”

To use a narcotics detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car subject to a valid traffic stop. Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).

Case Issue: Does the use of a narcotics detection dog during the course of a routine traffic stop violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures?

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.

An example could be a suspect’s significant other giving police a spare key to his home, and the police believe that the significant other lives there too the search does not violate the suspects 4th Amendment. The fourth being a stop and frisk, due to an officer’s reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. If police believe that the suspect maybe armed and dangerous they can frisk the suspect to prevent them from being put into any type of dangerous situations. The fifth being an automobile exception, a warrant is not required to search the vehicle if police have probable cause of evidence relating to a crime, assistance to a crime, or contraband. Although it’s called an automobile exception it also includes boats as well. The last being an emergency or hot pursuit, this is very similar to the automobile exception. Evidence can be moved or destroyed before a warrant can be issued, granting permission to seize evidence without a warrant. Also, if a suspect enters private property while being pursued there is no warrant needed to enter that private property. Unless something falls into one of these six exceptions, police will be required to issue a warrant to conduct a search or seizure.

The Fourth Amendment protects the individual from unreasonable police intrusion. The amendment is intended to guarantee all individuals in America, whether they’re here legally or illegally, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of their person and the places in which they have a reasonable privacy

Some searches such as a dog sniff inspection are also invalid under the fourth amendment. This is because it also violates a citizens’ expectations of

The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the police cannot make arrest, search citizens and their property without a warrant, take away objects or participate in surveillance unless given authorization from a judge or if the issue needs a search or seizure without the court's approval (The

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.

Now, of something is in plain view for a police officer to see, and it is known to be illegal, then the police officer is allowed to search further without a warrant. Search under the Fourth Amendment is when a person of the government violates a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Strip searches and visual body cavity searches are supported under the fourth amendment when there is probable cause, and are done under a reasonable manner (Legal Information Institute). Dog-sniff inspection is not valid under the Fourth Amendment if it violates a expectation of privacy, but surveillance is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. Seizure of a person under the Fourth is when a police officer’s conduct would be communicated to a reasonable person, and by taking into account the issues surrounding the encounter…”and that person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will” (Legal Information Institute).