Fourth Amendment Essay

relates to today legal system on discrimination and exclusion. Mass incarceration is one form of racial discrimination to gain social control. Many African Americans have been kept in prison while taking away their freedom for opportunities. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen's right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests

cause requirement to believe that the items in plain view are contraband while they are lawfully present in an area protected by the Fourth Amendment. (Rutledge, 2006) Once the officer has seen the items, the owner’s privacy interest in that item is lost. The “plain view doctrine” has three elements. First, an officer must be in an area protected by the Fourth Amendment. Second, the evidence or contraband must be out in plain view. Third, the officer must immediately recognize the evidence or contraband

phone, they found evidence that Cyrus had indeed sent the photos to other boys. The principal then suspended Cyrus for two weeks. Cyrus then filed a lawsuit against both the school district and the principal on the grounds that both his First and Fourth Amendment rights had

feared the new provisions would be used too much for ordinary crimes and many innocent people would be monitored and become suspects (“George W. Bush Signs the Patriot Act”). Violates the First Amendment Since the passing of the Patriot Act, opposition has argued that this violates a person’s first amendment freedoms by searching personal records such as internet searches and library habits. In reality, federal investigators have no interest in the personal habits of ordinary American citizens.

crew. Due to the 4th 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” (US Const. amend. IV), she demanded to see the warrant and until then they were not allowed entrance. The fourth amendment requires for a search

reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Court. “unlawful searches and seizure” “right to privacy” Issues: Is evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures” admissible as evidence in criminal

and attempted murder. Riley attempted to have all evidence from his phone dropped, claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were infringed. The court rejected his argument and Riley was charged and sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison (“Riley v. California”). The officer unreasonably searched and seized Riley’s cell phone without a warrant to obtain the incriminating information. The Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, again

the morals and ethics of the amendment to Rule 41 (Search and Seizure) of the federal rules of criminal procedure (FRCP). The ethical theory used to analyze the amendment to rule 41 of the FRCP is act utilitarianism (based off of the ‘greatest happiness principle’) which states that an action is considered moral if its benefits exceeds the harms to the affected parties. With the use of this ethical theory of act utilitarianism, it will be demonstrated that the amendment to to Rule 41 pertaining to

claim, and thus, making the claims inadmissible hearsay in a court of law which gives the police no probable cause to enter into the Defendant’s home violating the rights stated in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 4. The police were in violation of the Defendant’s “right to privacy” under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the police to enter Stewed’s home and place listening device in rooms her home without a warrant

per se rule. The Court concurred that essentially postponing a blood test to get a warrant would adversely influence the supportive value of the outcomes. However, it contemplated that when the state have sufficient time to get a warrant, the Fourth Amendment obliges it to do as such. While getting a warrant is unrealistic, the blood testing may well honor an exigency exception. Since the State construct its contention exclusively in light of the proposed per se rule, the Court declined to detail