Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
4th amendment search and seizure introduction paper
4th amendment probable cause arrests
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
4th amendment search and seizure introduction paper
4th amendment probable cause arrests
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Peter Crumans 4th amendments were not violated when he was compelled to show his Facebook page. School officials were trying to protect the wellbeing of their students, therefore trying to get to the bottom of what this tip was about and needed to search the suspected student who after a little persistence began to cooperate. Principal Lyons received an anonymous tip that Peter Curman had posted that he would be conducting a few sales of illegal drugs on school property giving him reasonable suspicion to search the student. In the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O school officials were able to search a student due to reasonable suspicion for violations on school property, therefore giving principal Lyons justification because he not only received
Supreme Court also ruled that any state officials that obtain evidence by the process of illegal seizure or searches may not admit the evidence into criminal trials. The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of citizens from unreasonable seizures and searches (Pearson Education). This decision by the U.S. Supreme Court enforces the exclusionary rule of search and seizures to the all levels of the government and limits the powers that police officers have over citizens by protecting their Fourth Amendment rights (Oyez Project). This case and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has redefined the rights of citizens accused of crimes. The decision is controversial because it makes it difficult to determine when or how the exclusionary rule is applied.
If a natural disaster strikes my area and the power is out for weeks, one of the limitations would be that the people would not feel that safe. Security wouldn't be enforced and since there is no security, there could be several possibilities of theft. Another limitation would be searches for any and everything. Both of these limitations should be practiced, so even if there is a national disaster we could be ready. The 4th amendment can be used as an explanation of how the limits
Unspoken: Miranda; More Than Words 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…” In Johnson v. United States (1948), officers smelled burning opium from the window of a hotel, the officers entered without warning, found the only occupant and had him persecuted. Though the man had committed the crime, he did not agree that the officers enter his hotel room or go through his belongings. Clearly this is a huge invasion of privacy and should be confronted by allowing one to know their right to decline. On that note, if there is any suspicion that narcotics are involved in a certain case there should be consequences,
According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.
The Fourth Amendment requires a probable cause for arrest. Substantially, particular things are needed to legally conduct a search or seizure. This incorporates arrest, so a search, a seizure, or an arrest cannot take place without reason. Not to mention, there must be a "court order" for Apple to give the government "customer data." So, since a “court order” must be in place for Apple to give the government “customer data,” that “court order” would have to also take place for an arrest that could conceivably follow.
The 14th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 in order to protect the civil rights of freed slaves after the civil war. With that being said, The Dred v. Scott case in 1857 held that African Americans were not U.S. citizens, even if they were free. The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The 14th amendment states that" that all persons born or naturalized in the United States including African Americans are citizens of the country.
Apple is trying to protect the American people that own any apple product from the FBI. The FBI wants apple to unlock the phone from the San Bernardino 's but Apple is not doing it because it is against the 4th amendment. Since the FBI can’t get into it because Apple can not give permission to the FBI, also they don’t have any reason to look at the phone so Apple did not allow tat to happen. My opinion on this matter is that apple is doing the right thing, if the government was able to get a hold of all the information that a single person had on their phone, I am pretty sure people would be embarrassed because of all the personal information on their phones. If Apple gave them the right to look through their phone than the 4th amendment would be compromised and then that can start an up riot.
In the year of 1865 many significant events took place. The civil war had just recently ended and the United States was entering a time of reconstruction which brought along many changes for the current and future citizens of the United States. During the year 1865 President Lincoln was assassinated and along with Lincoln the Wade- Davis bill died in his pocket. But what triggered the assassination of President Lincoln is the fact that during this time he wanted to move towards the slaves being treated more equally and eventually being freed into society. This enraged many people because they did not see the African Americans as equal to them.
The fourth amendment makes it hard for Law enforcement conducting investigations to get information that could be very useful. The apple company gets thousands and thousands of information requests that they are legally not allowed to share,and a large portion of the requests are from people whose devices have been lost or stolen. Additionally, lots of times Apple says no to the information requests, and even once Apple is approved to give personal material they still share a minimal amount of data, however Apple does collect a minimal amount of data. The patriot act allows certain exceptions having to do with terrorists to be made when finding information, and they are very helpful to law enforcement, but only in terroristic situations. Furthermore the amount of information that the Patriot act allows investigators to get for terror crimes just shows how much information we could be getting about horrific criminals that are not yet in jail.
The founders of the Constitution knew that it is important to protect citizens from violation of their privacy, especially to the respect of invasion of their homes. Therefore the fourth amendment came into existence to ensure that individuals rights will not be infringed. The fourth amendment and the exclusionary rule has protected individual rights against the police and other government agencies from, unreasonable search and seizures. Furthermore, the exclusionary rule has deterred police misconduct and as well as intended to discourage law enforcement from conducting illegal searches by stating that any evidence found during an illegal search will be dismissed and cannot be used against the defendant in a court of law. The supreme court case, Fremont weeks vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that since the evidence gathered during weeks case were through illegal means the court dismissed the case.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). In the scenario, it is important to remember that the employer is a government entity and the Fourth Amendment was originally designed to limit government authority as it applies to unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). You would not be able to make a strong argument that the government violated the Fourth Amendment in this scenario. The property, whether it is a laptop, cell phone, or tablet, belongs to the government. Government entities have policies that employees must read and sign specifically acknowledging there is no expectation of privacy on these devices owned by the government.
The fourth amendment is written to limit the power the government to go in our privacy. The amendment was written in 1791, smartphones were not invented until 1992. A smartphone is part of a person’s property and the amendment says that the government cannot search a person’s property without a warrant. In other hands on a police officer point of view they should be able to search through phone with or without warrants because they have important information for a crime or a
The biggest benefit of the Fourth Amendment is that it deters searches. A search under the Fourth Amendment is “when a governmental employee or an agent of the government violates an individual 's reasonable expectation of privacy” (Legal Information). If the government were to invade a citizen’s property no law enforcement shall search the human, but upon probable cause. The court will be the one to tell if the search falls under the Fourth Amendment, if it were to fall under the Fourth Amendment the citizen would not be searched. In addition, when the law enforcement believes searching a citizen is reasonable, no excessive force shall be used.
of needing government aid (Player 2014). The fourth amendment of the Constitution states that there is no legal search without prior suspicion. Forcing drug tests without first evidence of necessity, some would argue infringes on these individuals’ rights. Abuse of the system unfortunately occurs very often. People who use the money they receive on things not necessary for their families constitutes as abusing their aid.