William Served As A Justice Of The Supreme Court

The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

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

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 first Supreme Court Justice took office in 1789. His name was John Jay and he accepted the offer to take the position when offered it by George Washington. Congress approved him later in the year and he stayed in office until 1795. There have been many more Chief Justices in the United States Supreme Court with a current number of seventeen and with more to come.

• 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).

“Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever,” declared by past President William Howard Taft. Dated in 1789, the Judiciary Act by signed by Congress, which was demanded by the United States Constitution. This past principal court was ruled by a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices, accordingly today we still have a Chief Justice, but we currently have eight Associate Justices. The current Supreme Court has John G. Roberts, Jr. as Chief Justice, and the following are the current Associate Justices: Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Clarence Thomas, a conservative, best known as the second

Based on the research of Justice Alito, he was appointed by former president Gorge W. Bush as one of the Supreme Court Justices on January 31, 2006 and is currently a Republican Party federal justice. His approaches to things are very unpredictable and distinctive from what he is viewed as. However, his conservative standpoint is still a part of his image. This paper will include: the background of the justice, the judicial philosophy he approaches, and his opinion on a dispute.

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.

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.

At the urging of her attorney, Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that her First Amendment right had been violated. Her argument was that she was well within her rights to have been in the possession of the explicit material found during the search of her home. Interestingly enough, when her case went before the Supreme Court it was not the First Amendment that was addressed, but the Fourth Amendment. The argument supporting Mapp highlighted the fact that a search warrant was never produced at her original trial, so evidence against her should not have been used. Due to the fact that the evidence was seized illegally by the police without a warrant, the police violated her Fourth Amendment right. The Constitutional issue surrounding the case of Mapp v. Ohio involves the Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) Search and Seizure. Amendment IV was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified on December 15, 1791. According to the National Constitution Center, “Amendment IV people have the right 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.” (Amendment IV Search and

At Miss Mapp’s trial no search warrant was displayed by the prosecution nor was an explanation given (4). The Supreme Court dissented that appellant’s arrest was valid because of the circumstances which existed at the time of apprehension and therefore no warrant was requisite (3). The Supreme Court held that a government official may arrest a person without a warrant as long as probable cause is present and the person is guilty of a felony (3). In addition, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause in all state prosecutions. Hence, the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the states through the Due Process

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Evidence that is acquired in violation under the Fourth Amendment is prohibited in a court of law and unconstitutional.

Mapp v. Ohio, was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in this case this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as construed by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to actions of the states. On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in

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

“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.” the significance of the 4th fourth amendment lies in the protection of people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. Reasonable searches and seizure are always to be based on evidence and could be also used against the suspect in his trial as well. Despite all that, there few case where police attempt to use the slightest reason in order to break the law and violate the people’s rights. it occurs when police seize or obtains a private belonging without a reasonable cause. However, The U.S. authorities are penetrating people’s rights by alleging the reasonable searches in order to claim illegal evidence which violates the 4th amendment.