?Privacy is one of the biggest problems in this new electronic age.[footnoteRef:1]? [1: Andy Grove http://quotesgram.com/img/privacy-quotes/9730413/] This paper is intended to discuss the current state of Fourth Amendment law and evaluate the legality of State and Local governments use of drones as an extension of the state government?s police powers. The paper will proceed first by examining the current state of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence with particular attention paid to how courts have historically reconciled Fourth Amendment rights with State Government?s use of emerging technology to advance the state?s policing powers. Next, the author will define ?drones? and discuss the current capabilities of military and commercially available drones. To conclude, the author will analysis the current state of the Fourth Amendment and how courts have evaluated emerging technologies effect on the Fourth Amendment, together with the capabilities of modern drones, to determine the legality of State Governments usage of drones as a part of their police powers. Fourth Amendment ?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.[footnoteRef:2]? [2: U.S. Const. amend. IV. ] The Fourth
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
“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” (www.law.cornell.edu).
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
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
All Americans are entitled to their rights. The Fourth Amendment states that we the people have to deny search and seizures from law enforcement without a warrant. The fourth amendment generally prohibits police from entering a home without a warrant unless the circumstances fit an established exception to the warrant requirement. According to the book The Constitution: Our Written Legacy by Joseph A. Melusky, the Fourth Amendment gives the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although we are entitled to these rights, police sometimes use and abuse their authority. In many cases, the Fourth Amendment has helped prove the innocence of one’s actions.
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. (teachingamericanhistory.org 2006)
The Fourth Amendment states; ” the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause.
Throughout history, there are many cases that violated that right of the citizen especially the Fourth Amendment. What is the Fourth Amendment and why do many people challenge this amendment? The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not violate, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. The biggest problem with this amendment that many people tried to challenge is what is reasonable or unreasonable to searches and seizures. One case that challenges the Fourth Amendment is New Jersey v. T.L.O. that was argued on “March 28, 1984” ("New Jersey v. T.L.O." Oyez) and reargued on “October 2, 1984” ("New Jersey
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.(1)
“ 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.”
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from illegal search and seizures. Most search and seizures that are made without a warrant are unconstitutional and invalid; however, there are many exceptions to an amendment. According to Lawyers.com “there are several exceptions to the warrant requirement that permit warrantless searches, such as the automobile exception and a search incident to lawful arrest” (Unlawful Vehicle Search & Seizures, 2017). Officer Taylor thought a minor traffic violation occurred, therefore, the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop. In the case of Whren v. the United States, the case concluded that, “the existence of probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred establishes the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops regardless of the actual motivation of the officers involved” (U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment, 2017). Based on the Whren v. the United States case, the factor that the taillight ended up being operational doesn’t conclude the stop unjust because the officer thought the light was broken.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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.
This week in class we went in depth of the 4th Amendment, which essentially protects people against unreasonable search and seizure. The problem with this amendment is that people may not know what is considered unlawful when it comes to them being searched so they tend to comply so they do not cause more trouble or risk being arrested. However, it is these searches that they could have avoided because they were not constitutional, yet an officer then finds probable cause after searching the individual and they are then arrested for the found item or evidence. It is important to note that it is the responsibility of average citizens to know their basic rights so they are not taken advantage of. I learned the reason why people who typically
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search 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 seized.”