What Violates The Fourth Amendment?

"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."

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

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 Supreme Court made it clear with its ruling that, police do have the authority to stop or detain an individual for a questioning for a short-term period without probable cause if he/she make have or about to commit a crime. This ruling is important because it gives police officer the authority to help protect him/herself as well as the community. It also puts steps in place to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure that is protected our Fourth Amendment right. In the case of Terry v. Ohio a police detective observed two men walking up and down a street several times and gazing into a store window. The officer observing conduct from the individuals that would lead him or her to suspect that a crime has already happened or about to happen is one of the necessities need to consider this as a valid stop. The officer identified himself as an officer of the law and began to inquire and request identification. The officer in this case followed the required guidelines for a valid stop. In return the Supreme Court ruled that this was a valid stop and frisk. According to United States Supreme Court TERRY v. OHIO, (1968) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. While I unreservedly agree with the Court 's ultimate holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because what is said by this Court today

Mapp appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1961. The case basically came down to this fundamental question: may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings? 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?and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.? The Fourth Amendment, however, does not define when a search or seizure is

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.

Many people have fought against what they felt were unconstitutional searches by the government or its agents, therefore there have been landmark Supreme Court cases that have dealt with the Fourth Amendment. In Terry v. Ohio (Stop-and-Frisk) (1968) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause, if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was introduced to Congress in 1789 by James Madison, however it was not adopted until 1791, and is an extremely important amendment contained in the Bill of Rights. “In the past forty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly advanced the notion that the Fourth Amendment encompasses the common-law restrictions on searches and seizures,” (Mannheimer, M. Z., 2015, p.1, para.1). The Fourth Amendment requires governmental searches to be conducted only when a search warrant is issued, sanctioned by probable cause and supported by oath of affirmation, however, there are exceptions to this rule that are stated in the “Exclusionary Rule,” which was established in 1914. The “Exclusionary Rule” states that there are certain instances, where a search can be conducted without a warrant, such as probationary searches, plain view searches, exigent circumstance searches, border searches, and consent

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.

Terry vs. Ohio is a Supreme Court case which ruled on the legality of Stop and Frisks. The case eventually rules that Stop and Frisks do not violate a suspect’s fourth amendment right. The facts of this case surround the defendant, John Terry, who was frisked by Officer Martin McFadden. McFadden was watching Terry, along with one other man, with reasonable suspicion that he was planning on robbing a store. McFadden approached them, stopped them and proceeded to frisk them.While frisking Terry, McFadden found a gun. Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivers the court’s opinion which expresses the rule for the legality of Stop and Frisks. A Stop and Frisk does not infringe on a suspect’s fourth amendment rights if the need to search is greater than

The Fourth Amendment is another interesting Amendment which involve searches and seizure. In the U.S., cops generally require a court affirmed warrant to lead an inquiry of a private home or business and gather proof identifying with a criminal action. Portrayal from their opposing association with British powers within the colonial days, the composers of the Constitution instituted that procurement to secure natives' protection and guarantee that police did not mishandle their authority. Today, as wrongdoing battling innovation has developed more refined and police observation more complete, such laws have ended up open to different understandings by officers and the courts.

In the case Mapp v. Ohio, the police received a tip that a possible bomber was hiding in the home of Ms. Mapp. The police went to Ms. Mapp's home claimed to have a warrant entered the home and searched the entire home. During the search Mapp struggled with an officer to see the warrant and was placed in handcuffs. The search resulted in the police finding obscene materials; Mapp was then arrested for possession of these. Mapp's lawyer argued that no warrant was produced prior to the search of her home, which meant that the material found could not be used in court against Mapp. This case was taken to the Supreme Court where it received a 6 -3 decision in Mapp's favor. The court stated, "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is by the same authority, inadmissible in a state court." With

“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 seized.”

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

On October 31, 1963, a veteran detective of 39 years in downtown Cleveland noticed two men (one being the petitioner Terry) walking back in forth in front of the same store numerous times each. When they returned they would talk between each other for a few moments. Then, the men met with a third man and stood outside “suspiciously” chatting before the third man left (Terry v. Ohio). The officer suspected that the men were casing the stores for a stick-up or robbery and began to follow the two men (Oyez). Again, the two men met with the third man around the block in front of another store and again conversed. That is when the detective approached the three men, announcing himself as a police officer and asking the names of the men (Terry v. Ohio). The men replied with a low mumble, upon which the officer grabbed Terry, spun him around and patted him down (ACLU Ohio). Upon patting down his overcoat, he found a pistol on Terry, and then another pistol on the other man that was originally with Terry, before patting down and arresting the three men on concealed weapon charges. This type of stop and frisk technique is now known as the “Terry frisk” because of this (Argiriou).