Pros And Controversies Regarding The Scope Of Fourth Amendment Protections

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides 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 Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had long required that the claimant must prove that he/she was the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment.

The United States has been well known and notable for its freedom and liberty that it upholds. Matter of fact, some people have even left their native countries to have a better successful life in the U.S. Unfortunately,their own country didn’t offer the opportunities that the U.S offered. Although freedom has been enjoyed for some years now, what if those freedoms were at risk? The Bill of Rights is unstable and could be modified at any moment in time. The 4th amendment is constantly being violated by law enforcement, allowing the amendment more than likely to be changed.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

In establishing a § 1983 claim the claimant must first determine which constitutional right was violated. In this case, Dave Douglas, Taylor Reveley, and George Walkers claims fall under the Fourth Amendment because they have not been arrested or detained for pretrial. Each plaintiff will argue that the police officers seized them unreasonably and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. First, the claimant must establish that the government actor was acting under “the color of law.” In this case, the police officers were acting in their official capacity as on-duty cops. HotCop, as a possible contractor with law enforcement may also operate under the color of law and therefore be subject to suit as well. This will be addressed further later in the memo. Each potential plaintiff and the possible defenses to their claims is addressed below.

“Nothing is more clear than that the Fourth Amendment was meant to prevent wholesale intrusions upon the personal security of our citizenry, whether these intrusions be termed ‘arrests’ or ‘investigatory detentions.’ ” Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-727.

One of the many freedoms we enjoy, as Americans is the right that protects us from unreasonable search and seizures; as well as the necessity for a search warrant when law enforcement wishes to search someone’s property. This right is known as the Fourth Amendment and it contains two clauses: the first one is the reasonableness clause, which states that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The second part is the warrant clause, which states that a warrant must be issued upon the finding of probable cause. It must then be supported by an affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and what us intending to be found.

As we grow up, there are certain rights that we develop as people as we age. For example, at the age of 18 we are given the right to vote in elections as well as purchase tobacco if we so choose too. But there are certain rights, given to all citizens of the United States, independent of age, that also can not be taken away. As an example, the 1st amendment allows for the freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition. The 14th amendment gives citizenship to all people who are born or naturalized in the United States. In today’s day in age however, one amendment has become quite controversial, the 4th amendment. This amendment protects people against unreasonable and unlawful search and seizure and that warrants may not be issued unless there is probable cause. What becomes controversial now is whether or not this amendment includes the protection of what a person says or does on the internet as well as what a person says to another well calling another person. The 4th amendment reads, “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.” In its current phrasing it is vague enough to push the boundaries of what is protected and what isn’t. For this reason it needs to be updated to fit

Since its inception, the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution have been expanding and evolving because of new technology. The Fourth Amendment generally protects us all from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, n.d., p. 1199). Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Riley v. California highlight how new technology can lead to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that alter the protections provided by this amendment (Hall, 2015). In 1968, the Supreme Court decision in Katz v. United States fundamentally changed the measure used to judge whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurs due to new technology being utilized by law enforcement. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of Riley v. California is a more relatable case, since it involves technology that the vast majority of us use everyday (Savage, 2014). This case changed the way law enforcement is able to legally search the cellphone of an arrestee, by strengthening the arrestee’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment is an important part of our constitution and protecting U.S. citizens’ rights, but has recently been weakened and worm holed by the government. The amendment states that there has to be a search warrant issued in order to be able to gain access to a U.S. citizens personal records. Since the 60’s however, this rule has been bypassed to allow the NSA to have the ability to search homes and personal records without a search warrant. Modern technology has negatively effected the amendment, and has been one of the most recent cases of the amendment being worm holed. When the “private information” is put on social media site, the information then belongs to the site, not the user. This allows the government to get on the site,

Protection of the citizens should be a crucial part of its aims in regards to the fourth amendment. According to Crespo, “self-regulation of law enforcement” should be considered the issue of keeping surveillance of public space. Warrantless searches are subject only to few limited exceptions, but other than that it presumptively unreasonable to go ahead with it. The Supreme Court has held that warrantless beeper monitoring is permissible on a public highway, not including the private residence. Therefore, the issue of threshold has been a serious matter ever since. The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule allows criminal defendants to suppress "fruit of the poisonous tree" , considering evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure that

The 4th Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. This not only protects out of the blue searches for no reason, but invasion of privacy. This keeps authority figures from searching like, maybe a car trunk. This also makes it to where they need a valid reason and a search warrant. They can’t just walk through someone’s doors and begin searching with no reason,

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

The Fourth Amendment reads, “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” ("Fourth Amendment legal definition of Fourth Amendment. Fourth Amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary", n.d.). The fourth amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” (Gardner & Anderson, 2012, p.