Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
4Th Amendment
The 4th amendment explained
The 4th amendment explained
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: 4Th Amendment
The 4th amendment states that the right to privacy should not by violated by conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. In the hudson v. Palmer case, an inmate named Russel Palmer sued Ted Hudson who was an officer at the Virginia prison. Palmer stated that the officer had conducted a shakedown of his locker and cell in the attempt to find hidden contraband. After the search turned out to be unsuccessful, Officer Hudson, then charged Palmer for destroying state property, as they found a ripped pillow case in his cell. Ted Hudson won the case, as the court stated that the right to privacy does not apply within a prison cell.
The Supreme Court argued that the police officer had reasonable suspicion and searching the men was in the best interest of the officer for his protection. It was an eight to one decision, the one being William Douglas. He argued that they were giving too much power to police, and that there should be a court order for search and seizure. In this time period, stop and frisks were an everyday thing. Law enforcement broke the fourth amendment most of the time, abusing their badge that allowed them to search who they want, when they want, whether they were acting a certain way or not.
Furthermore, this act violated Jones’ Fourth Amendment right. R3: The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and affects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is disputable that a vehicle lies under the category of an effect. Moreover, the vehicle being an effect violates the Fourth Amendment and therefore makes the search illegal.
Billy is on the phone with Bob while they are talking on the phone and someone coughs and it is neither of them. Well, the government are the only ones who can hack phones and listen to phone calls, the 4th amendment has allowed this to happen. The 4th amendment has gavin the right to law enforcement to be cruel and unfair about a search and seizure. Without a warrant you cannot search a person, well not anymore, the government can search anyone at any time in some scenarios. Normally, there is an abundant amount of evidence used to be given the permission to search one’s belongings, but since 9/11 law enforcement needs little evidence to be provided a search warrant.
Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.
This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all
Although, the decision tested the true meaning of the 4th amendment, it also provided clarity as well as security for the men and women who serve in law enforcement. The ruling allowed law enforcement to legally “Frisk” a subject, thereby providing law enforcement officers the opportunity to protect themselves. Furthermore, it is through these reasonable stops and pat downs that thousands of arrests are made for illegal activity. For example, the New York Police Department through the increase in police enforcement, along with what is referred to as “Stop and Frisk”, saw a 80% reduction in the homicide rate, therefore protecting and saving thousands of lives through this court
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 year before in 1970, President Richard Nixon put in affect the use of air marshals on select flights, in hope to deter any hijackings. However, since at the time it was unfeasible to have a marshal on each flight, midair hijacking still took place. Following Coopers hijacking, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered all airports to begin screening passengers and baggage for weapons and bombs (Wu). Many argued that this violated the fourth amendment rights, which prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures and all warrants to the affect must be based upon reasonable cause (The Constitution of the United States, p. 529). The people took the FAA to court over the decision and the court agreed with the general public that yes the act did violate the 4th amendment rights, however they would allow it so far as it abided by two rules, one that if must be applied universally so there would be no chance for discrimination.
The American Civil Liberty Union, since the second provision of the law took effect, received hundreds of calls about the possible rights violation related to the provision, hence the reported victims reveal that they (U.S. citizens and permanent residents) were subjected to racial profiling and unlawful detention by law enforcement (Wessler, 2013). The bill is a violation of the United States’ 4th Amendment that protects people against unreasonable searches and seizure. The policy grant law enforcement the authority to detain people through subjective judgement, therefore, police officers can harass and discriminate against those whose visually appear to be Mexican or Hispanic, regardless of the person’s immigration status or
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect
Before the 20th century, there were few, if any, cases based on the Fourth Amendment. However, as surveillance by law enforcers became more common, these tactics, and others, were scrutinized in court cases throughout the 20th and 21st century. Within the past 50 years there have been more and more cases held to determine whether or not a citizen’s right were being violated or if authorities were within the law. Like a story with multiple timelines, the outcome of a case disputing the fourth amendment is not always clear or predictable. PII Like many of the other amendments, already established traditions of British law supported the concept of the IV Amendment.
Unreasonable search and seizure is an asset in this country. It is an asset in this country because the police have to have rules also. If America did away with the fourth Amendment there would not be any crime because the police will be able to arrest anyone without probable cause. The police would have such much power that people will be afraid to even drive through a stop sign.
Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional to the Fourteenth Amendment which is misused by
Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.