The Pros And Cons Of Fourth Amendment Violations

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 Constitution of The United States of America was created “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” Our rights, as citizens, are protected by the first ten amendments also known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were established due to the strong objections of the British rule on the original colonies. Particularly speaking, the fourth amendment has protected our rights from unlawful search and seizures. With the implementation of “Probable Cause” and the vagueness of the Bill of Rights, the rules have been stretched and some say violated.We the people, need to develop the fine line between Probable cause and an unlawful search.

The fourth amendment was created to protect the individual rights form governmental intrusion. The fourth amendment protects the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. This shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue unless it is upon probable cause. It was established on December 15, 1791 during the colonial era. When the 4th Amendment became part of the Constitution, it was originally only applied to the federal government. Then it was applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The fourth amendment is so important to American, because it is the natural right of the people and the protection from intrusion. Now in society many people do not understand that the

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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

S.N. Herman in his article The US PATRIOT ACT and the Submajoritarian Fourth Amendment that was published in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review in 2006 deals completely around violations of the US Patriot Act in regards to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It brings forth the facts that support that we as American citizens have allowed the government to chip away at our rights to be free from unreasonable searches and

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.

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

The government has the power over many things but this time they went a bit too far and took advantage of their power by spying on us. Is it a conspiracy or a fact?The US government with assistance from major telecommunication carriers including At&T , has engaged in massive,illegal dragnet surveillance of the domestic communications and communication records of millions of ordinary Americans getting information which i think at times it can be necessary.Someone can be plotting a terrorist attack , murder or robbing a bank. Some say the NSA(National Security Agency) has invented futuristic “toys” they have become creative finding new ways to get Intel on us.