The Fourth Amendment, And Why Is It Useful To You?

"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 of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

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).)

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 Fourth Amendment is the right for people to be secure in their homes, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. The amendment also states that warrants will not be issued unless they are issued under probable cause. This amendment is the biggest factor in the case of Omaha Herald v. Police, however, this case cannot as easily be defined by the Fourth Amendment can be and there are arguments and cases which can be made for both sides.

What constitutes a valid search and seizure? The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, it seeks to create stability or poise between the needs of law enforcement and the privacy of people in the United States (Worrall, 2017). The justifications that arise from the law make sure that enforcement officials function within reasonable standards in their search of a suspect. This paper examines the three levels of justification that validates a Fourth Amendment search. As a result, it is necessary to explore such justifications and their applicability.

America’s Founding Fathers believed in establishing a strong democracy that focused on the individual rights of man. The idea of moralities that humans naturally possess was a strong influence in the establishment of a country that attempts to provide a written decency that all should have a right to receive. The fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with many others, created in the Bill of Rights has become seemingly infringed in the name of security and overall welfare to all.

The fourth amendment protects citizen’s right against unreasonable search and seizures. Law enforcement are required to show probable cause to be issued a warrant which grants law enforcement to conduct a legal search. There are a few exceptions when a warrant is not required, but probable cause is still needed.

The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights, and was introduced to Congress by James Madison in 1789. The role of the Fourth Amendment is to prohibit unreasonable search and seizure and a warrant is to be required that is supported by probable cause. Even though the Amendment was introduced in 1789, it wasn’t adopted as an official amendment until 1792, because in December of 1791 three quarters of the states had ratified the amendment. The fourth amendment had a case law that dealt specifically with three different questions: “what government activities constitute “search” and “seizure”; what constitutes probable cause for the actions that was taken; and how violations of the Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed”. (Brady)

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 protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures. Only the ones that are considered unreasonable under the law. That is why it is my favorite amendment.

The courts would further recognize exceptions to warrant requirements which also granted legal authority to search and seize without a warrant. The following paper discusses the importance of the fourth amendment in regard to legal search and seizures by obtaining legal warrants and the impact the amendment has had on court cases.

INTRODUCTION: In Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the question of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was brought before the court system. The case looked at the admissibility of evidence discovered during search and seizure, in particular, as it relates to street encounters and investigations between citizens and officers of the law. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the decision of the 5th Ohio Court of Appeals. This case was of particular importance it helped establish what type of search and seizure behavior was lawful and unlawful on the part of officers, and set clear guidelines. The rulings in this case pertain to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).

The major constitutional issue this case deals with is the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to