The Pros And Cons Of The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is one of the ten amendments that makes up the Bill of Rights. It established that people are protected against “unreasonable searches and seizures” of their “persons houses, papers, and effects” and that a warrant may be issued if probable cause exists and it must describe “the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized” (HOW TO CITE THIS? U.S. Const., amend. IV)

• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

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 is an important part of our constitution and protecting U.S. citizens’ rights, but has recently been weakened and worm holed by the government. The amendment states that there has to be a search warrant issued in order to be able to gain access to a U.S. citizens personal records. Since the 60’s however, this rule has been bypassed to allow the NSA to have the ability to search homes and personal records without a search warrant. Modern technology has negatively effected the amendment, and has been one of the most recent cases of the amendment being worm holed. When the “private information” is put on social media site, the information then belongs to the site, not the user. This allows the government to get on the site,

“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 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).

These pursuits are regularly unsuccessful on getting the criminals, and instead this policy is going against the 4th Amendment. Regarding the Bill of Rights the 4th Amendment is what gives us the citizens the right to be safe and secure in our personal space and also it protects us against any unreasonable searches without any documentation or probable

To begin with, the most important parts of the 4th amendment is the right to have the sense of security of your property and your individual rights . For instance a preceden is Katz v ohio this shows that the government can go too far with their search and seizure procedure. Today there is many cases in which the government is not using a search warrant when they are searching someone. Another reason is the writs of assistance case which established that the government does not take into consideration the 4th amendment for years the colonies got their ships searched and they were ran over by the government until the 4th amendment became a bill of right. How they established this case is they searched a ship for smuggled goods.

The fourth amendment applies only to full searches and arrests; so short of full arrest and searches, officers’ discretion controls their contacts with individuals in public places.

Protecting American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures is the central idea of the Fourth Amendment; however, the Fourth Amendment may also apply to electronics. Classified organizations, such as, the NSA secretly collect information that includes, details of phone calls, e-mails, and personal Internet activity, although, in 2013 the NSA’s secret was revealed to the public, since it was not publicly known that the NSA had been collecting bulk phone data. The NSA later tried to defend itself and state that it doesn’t mean that they collect all personal records, such as, medical records and library records. In order for the NSA to legally store phone data the agency must first receive a warrant from the FISA Court each time it wants

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

If none of these previsions have been taken into account I would have to say that I strongly disagree with the fourth amendment in this current date because we would applying a law that was created so long ago without any concern to how it should be updated.

The Fourth Amendment is clearly broken in the case of Weeks v. United States, it was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means

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 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 legal definition of Fourth Amendment. Fourth Amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary", n.d.). The fourth amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” (Gardner & Anderson, 2012, p.

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.