Against The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

The Fourth Amendment makes people in American feel safe and secure. David Sirota author of “Does the government actually understand the 4th Amendment?” says,"a few years after it aired the director of national Intelligence admitted illegal surveillance was still taking place"(understand). " the Government’s unverified assertion that it has halted “systemic” illegal/unconstitutional surveillance by the National Security Administration." says David Sirota author of “Does the government actually understand the 4th Amendment?”(Understand). Sirota also states "The NSA is admitting that even with an outdated 1997 supreme court ruling it knows it cannot post mass collect metadata with no warrants whatsoever.

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Noah Pardi Mrs. Hansen Block 6 3/1/23 DLK vs. United States: Did the Government go too far? “Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds,” said John Perry Barlow. To start, The Fourth Amendment is the amendment which protects the people and their property from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In the DLK vs United States case, DLK was growing marijuana plants in his house. The police suspected him of growing the marijuana plants.

But the officer continued to pat down the persons to find illegal weapons. The case went to the Supreme Court and the court was convinced that it does not violate the fourth amendment to pat down a person to find any illegal weapons by the police officer if the officer suspects that the person may have committed a crime or going to do a crime. As per this case, we can understand that a

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.

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

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.

In his chapter “Another Country” , David Shipler writes about his belief that the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens are being infringed upon by the modern day police force. He explains how, through the years, various court cases have changed the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, giving police the power to justify questionable methods regarding the searches of individuals, their vehicles, and other personal belongings. Shipler uses examples of firsthand experience working with policemen who specifically abused these changes in order to conduct such questionable searches. These examples involved the “frisking” of individuals as well as the stopping and searching of individuals’ vehicles without their direct consent.

To begin, we need to understand the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment was created to prevent the government from breaching into our homes and convicting us of crimes based on evidence they discover within our homes. It was vital to state unreasonable searches in the constitution, and an unreasonable search is a search done without

The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.

Let us start with the Fourth Amendment. Before we can examine how it is ignored, it

Is war really a battle fought between two nations or more? The oxford definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. In relation to war, racial profiling can be seen as an undeclared war. An undeclared war is a term used for disagreement fought without an official declaration. The undeclared war between male minorities and police forces is a constant issue that is being surpassed in our society.

Is the Search in R. v. Polesky Reasonable? On an episode of Law and Order, Mr. Polesky was tried for second degree murder based on the captivation of a murder weapon found under the mattress he sleeps on in Central Park. Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that: “everyone has the right to be secured against unreasonable search or seizure”. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Schedule B, Constitution Act, 1982, s. 8 [Charter]