Pros And Cons Of The Fourth Amendment

Decent Essays

i. Fourth Amendment The court acknowledges that the Fourth Amendment grants the citizens of the United States protection against illegal searches and seizures of their home by requiring a warrant unless there is consent (U.S. Const. am. 4). We understand that the defendants did not have a warrant and that the plaintiffs did not consent to a search. ii. Hot Pursuit However, the court recognizes that the defendants were legally allowed to enter the plaintiff’s house while in pursuit of the fleeing criminal. While a warrant is normally required to enter a citizen’s private home, there are certain exceptions to this. In this case, the defendants were using a term known as hot pursuit, which allows officers to enter private premises if it is necessary to make an arrest (Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 1967). If the defendants were not allowed to enter the home, a variety of issues could have come from it; if the criminal had a weapon, it could have potentially turned into a hostage situation or worse; the criminal could have used the home as a vantage point to take aim at the defendants; people in the home could have hid the criminal; the criminal could have easily escaped. It is clear that hot pursuit was utilized properly here. iii. Testimony of Officers Smith and Jones is Admissible Evidence Because the defendants were allowed to be there under hot pursuit, the testimony from them is admissible. They are trained professionals and it is expected of them to know the signs of

Get Access