Unreasonable 4th Amendment

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).)

• 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).

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.

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which was established in the seventeenth and eighteenth century English common law. Aside from the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to a strong public reaction from some cases back in the 1760s. Two of these cases happened in England and one case happened in the colonies. These cases involved some pamphleteers who would pass out pamphlets to the public in order to spread their word around. These pamphlets however ridiculed the king and his ministers. After finding this out the king issued warrants to have the pamphleteer’s homes ransacked and stripped of all their books and papers. Even back then the pamphleteers knew that their rights

The Fourth Amendment was added on December 15, 1791, and ensured that it would protect citizens from arbitrary invasions, unlawful detainments, and a citizen’s right to privacy in the United States. Throughout modern America, the Fourth would should up in various landmark court cases around the country and establish itself as one of the most fundamental rights a person can possess. Citizens have the right to feel safe in their homes, as well as being safe around their own town, but what would happen if you were not at your residence and police wanted to search your home? This can be seen in the court case Weeks v. United States.

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.

These exceptions are indeed consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure for the previously stated reasons. With regards to open field searches the court finds that the Fourth Amendment only protects the privacy of the individual and their property within a close proximity to the curtilage of their home. Warrantless search of an open field amounts to little more than trespassing rather than a violation of a constitutional right. With regards to the search of objects in plain view. The court has held that objects in plain view have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy simply, and clearly because of the fact that the owner of these personal effects has not afforded the kind of privacy over these

The Fourth Amendment under the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 353 (1967). The general rule under the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant to be obtained before a search. Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2482 (2014). However, a search without a warrant may be reasonable if it falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. Id. at 2482.

The Bill of Rights is a necessary piece of the Constitution, written to protect the people of the United States of America. The fourth amendment in particular is designed to protect one from unreasonable searches and seizures of ones property. A search or seizure is considered unreasonable without an issued search warrant. However, a peace officer may search without having a search warrant if there is probable cause. According to Cornell University Law School “The Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure of electronic devices.” The fourth amendment does have rules set for protection of telephonic and electronic activities requiring search warrants, but the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center has altered this law.

The 4th amendment written in the Bill of rights was passed on December 15, 1791. This amendment was very important and is very commonly used. This amendment states that police are prohibited doing any unreasonable searches or seizures without a warrant. Police are only allowed to search your property if there is an obvious problem going on and it can't be second guessed. Some things that a police can search with a warrant are legal papers, your home, and private property. This amendment is important because it helps with our safety and others. For example, if you were to be stopped because you were speeding and when you get pulled over, the police smells alcohol he is allowed to search your car for any other things that could be illegal or harmful to other. The police can do this without getting a warrant because it's not a huge crime that the person is committing but is instead it's a search for your safety. This amendment took a while to get passed but once it did many issues were resolved and it became very commonly used quickly. This

The petitioner was convicted in the district court for the southern district of california under eight-count indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, in violation of a federal statute (Hall, 2016.) During trial the government was permitted over the petitioner’s objection, to introduce evidence of the petitioner’s end of telephone conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls (Hall, 2016.) During the conviction, the Court of Appeals rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights, because there was no physical entry (Hall, 2016.)

Did you know Evidence that is obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment is usually not admissible in court? It’s actually interesting how this works. The amendment i chose is the 4th one because i like my persons and properties protected. This right was put in the bill of rights because there were to many unreasonable searches and seizures. To me i feel this right is used today to keep the searches and seizures under control. I think the 4th amendment may be under attack by the officers who do illegal searches and violate the amendments.

While President Obama states that the intelligence community looks through “metadata,” they are only looking for potential leads that could be linked with terrorism (Transcript Obama’s Remarks 4.3). However, the intelligence community does not need a warrant to search through the data because they are only looking at the length of the call and the numbers themselves. Similarly, if the government needs to listen to any calls that are possible threats to the country they will get a warrant from a judge (Transcript Obama’s Remarks 4.3). Even if the government has issued a warrant and has a reason to listen to a call, it could be a misinterpreted mistake by the program, or a hacker that wants to benefit themselves. In addition, Cornell University Law School’s, Legal Information Institute website, points out that “warrantless searches on private premises are strictly prohibited,” and are against the rights stated in the Fourth Amendment (Legal Information Institute 1.1). As a result, law enforcement officers need a liable reason to receive an approved warrant given by a judge, but if a property is abandoned they do not need a warrant. Finally, whenever people are going to seize surveillance from a camera, they should obtain permission from a

The Fourth Amendment is set to protect against unreasonable searches. (Hall, 2015). I believe as current police officer and especially in today's society it is imperative that we understand the laws that we are trusted to enforce. The reason there are laws set in place is because previously someone has had their civil rights violated. That is why now we have so many case laws to reference. Obviously with times come changes. As of now and what I have learned in the academy there are certain exceptions to enter someones residence without a warrant. They are exigent circumstance, in another words if there could be serious bodily injury or death then we have our due diligence as police officers to enter the residence. If we are pursuit of an individual

When you think of the Amendment's, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and many more may come to mind. But, what about the rights of the accused? The rights of the people who are accused of a crime they may or may have not committed. Well, those include the 4th, 5th, 6th 7th, and 8th Amendment. Below will explain how some of these rights protect the accused.