The Importance Of Information Technology In The Fourth Amendment

Hey, Professor Farris, according to the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department any search or seizure without a warrant must be justified and supported by clear, convincing and articulable facts. Officers must be prepared to justify any and all warrantless searches. A search without a warrant has consistently been found by the courts to be preemptively unreasonable, and therefore invalid, absent specific and articulable facts. If an experienced officer has the reasonable suspicions can articulate to a set of facts and circumstances that criminal activity may be afoot and make rational inferences. (Booker, 2015) The officer must have probable cause under any circumstances that would lead a reasonable man to believe that it is more likely than not a certain individual has committed or is committing an absolute crime. Officers may search vehicles when there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle. The vehicles need only to show inherent mobility rather than actual mobility. The search can be made immediately or delayed as long as probable cause existed even if the vehicle has been impounded and immobilized. An officer may search in any place that the object of the search may reasonably be found. This includes locked containers. Probable cause must be item specific. Probable cause for arrest is not probable cause for a search. Probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search has to be just as sufficient as probable cause to support

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).)

To have probable cause, there must exist “a fair probability that the police will find evidence of a crime.” However, “no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure absent ‘exigent circumstances.’”

In the article of Scott Morgan “5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search” he explains why we shouldn't agree to a police search. “You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime.” It's your constitutional right so we could stand up to each other unless they have a probable cause. It's your privacy they might even break something when they are searching you.

Search incident to Lawful Arrest- if an individual happens to be arrested lawfully they are no longer a free citizen therefore a police officer may search their persons and any areas that are within their reach. An example can be Mary is arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. She was stopped after swerving through the road and going at a very slow speed. A search of her vehicle found narcotics in the passenger side of the vehicle. She was herself and that was within her wingspan.

Is the 4th amendment still valuable in modern society since the 4th amendment can no longer be directly applied with the rise of new technology? The fourth Amendment is, “ 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). This amendment originally was created to protect houses from being raided uncontrollably in the mid 17th century. Obviously in the 17th century technology such as the internet did not exist yet, so important documents and information were on paper. Therefore all the significant documents were stored in a house, or building making it easy to secure them. Similarly because of the 4th Amendment their house couldn’t be searched without a warrant so all of their important documents would be safe. Fast forward 300 years many things have changed and society is still using an outdated document to judge modern society which calls for an evolved amendment. For example, the 4th Amendment is no longer directly viable since the internet and phones weren’t created during the time period the Bill of Rights was made. Ultimately the 4th Amendment is extremely valuable because it provides us the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, which can be inferred

The outlook for search and seizure (The fourth amendment) is all about privacy. Citizens have the right to deny searches or seizures of property or things unless the officer has a valid search warrant, valid arrest warrant, or probable cause."Probable cause has to come from specific facts and circumstances, not simply an officer's hunch, feeling, or suspicion." ("Search and Seizure", 2018). The police have grounds to believe they will notice proof that you just committed a criminal offense, and a judge issues a warrant or the actual circumstances justify the search while not a warrant initial being issued.

American history has seen past and present controversial cases surrounding the issue of GPS tracking. Essentially, the Fourth Amendment provides documentation that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and enforces that search warrants are formulated on probable cause, not on suspicion of law enforcement officials. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment has been around for nearly 250 years and has served its purpose for American Citizens, however, there are many relevant cases that suggest when the Amendment violated the rights of an individual. Below are controversial cases that caused

There are some exceptions when it pertains to search and seizure where law enforcement is not always required to get a warrant. If a warrant issued by the courts states that they will

Under the fourth amendment, each individual in the United States is protected against unreasonable search as seizures. However, if there is probable cause law enforcement can perform a warrantless search without a warrant. Some examples in which law enforcement perform warrantless searches include: consent to search, plain view, and extreme emergency purposes. Under the fourth amendment, law enforcement can perform a warrantless search under these conditions. The reason law enforcement can perform a warrantless search based on consent is because an individual has given them the right to search their property. Therefore, anything that an officer find can be used in court. In the Schneckloth v. Bustamante 1973 case, the U.S. Supreme Court held

When they search without a warrant they could do a voluntary search in which you freely give them permission to go ahead and conduct the search and you can‘t be tricked or coerced into giving the consent. The police can conduct various types of searches such as when you are being arrested the police have the right to go ahead and conduct a search of your immediate areas some people say it can only go as far as the wingspan on your arms but others beg to differ. Another is the inventory search in which they go through all your stuff to make a list of all the items you have 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,

Again in other case if a judge has issued a warrant he can break the door when there is no response from the person and go inside the house to investigate and also he can catch at the public place also. Upon that they are some exception while searching or seizing the things like emergency, lawful arrest, consents, stop and frisk etc…

ii)police can search your car without search warrant but they need to confirm that they met all the probable cause requirements. most of the searches are warrantless only

The Fourth Amendment mandates that “probable cause” must be demonstrated in order for law enforcement personnel to obtain a warrant. Probable cause is obtained by law enforcement personnel proving to a judge that there is a high expectation of evidence of a crime being located upon the person, or within the location, they wish to search (Hill & Hill, 2014). Federal law does allow law enforcement to conduct a search without a warrant. The exception is for