The Fourth Amendment Under The Constitution Prohibits Unreasonable Searches And Seizures

The three elements that comprise a Fourth Amendment search are government, intrusion and reasonable expectation of privacy. Without all three elements the action is not a search, the Fourth Amendment is not applicable, and a search warrant is not needed. The officer must then determine if any of the ten search warrant exceptions apply. Five of the exception require probable cause and the other five do not.

Once it is established the testing method used passes the Daubert test, the court must determine admissibility based on the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is 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 to be seized (US Const.)

The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current

The United States Constitution affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always

For example: Max is pulled over by a police officer who saw his car weaving on the roadway. The officer asks Max for his drivers’ license, and notices a strong smell of marijuana coming through the open window. Having asked Max to get out of the car, the officer then notices both a strong smell of alcohol on Max’s breath, and tiny green flakes on his shirt. The officer detains Max based on a reasonable suspicion that Max is under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

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.

and seizure (Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

The Fourth Amendment 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 Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution applies to a person and their home by providing protection against unreasonable seizures and searches. While it provides protection, not every search and seizure can be deemed unreasonable unless it is classified as per the law, by determining whether there was: a) the level of intrusion of the individuals Fourth Amendment, and b) whether or not it pertains to the government’s interest, such as safety of the public.

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 Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized” (Smentkowski, 2014). The Fourth Amendment clearly states that an individual has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but what constitutes a search? The Bill of Rights was created due to the founders and the authors of the Constitution wanting to protect and preserve the rights of the citizens. The Fourth Amendment

When assessing Fourth Amendment challenges to blood and DNA extraction and evaluation, Samson v. California remains essential to understand the evolution of the Fourth Amendment. In Samson v. California, a law enforcement officer, familiar with a defendant’s parole status from a prior encounter, searched a man without a warrant. The officer soon discovered methamphetamine concealed in a cigarette box while searching the parolee’s car. The officer convicted Samson, the parolee, with drug possession charges. In argument, Samson insisted the drugs were inadmissible as evidence, furthermore the search had violated his Fourth Amendment rights and violated his right to privacy. Samson v. California reached the Supreme Court to decide whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from conducting a warrantless search of a person who was

The Supreme Court attests. The Court noticed that its point of reference requests a case-by-case examination when lower courts figure out if urgent conditions advocated a warrantless pursuit. In spite of the fact that the State contended that exigency essentially exists in any DWI related blood test given that blood-alcohol content quickly decreases with time, the Court found no argumentation to embrace a per se rule. The Court concurred that essentially postponing a blood test to get a warrant would adversely influence the supportive value of the outcomes. However, it contemplated that when the state have sufficient time to get a warrant, the Fourth Amendment obliges it to do as such. While getting a warrant is unrealistic, the blood testing may well honor an exigency exception. Since the State construct its contention exclusively in light of the proposed per se rule, the Court declined to detail the significant elements courts must weigh while investigating exigency in DWI cases. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence,’ ” id., at 770 (Missouri v. McNeely, 2013)

Soon multiple pregnant women who had been subjected to the testing decided to sue the MUSC hospital for their system of drug testing pregnant women. These women argued that by drug testing the hospital was infringing on their fourth amendment right, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. However the hospital also had a defense, arguing that the women had given their permission for the testing and that the testing fell under special non-law enforcement purposes (“Ferguson”).

In the Fourth Amendment it states that the rights of the people are to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure. The people who are doing the testing have no right to invade the bodies of high