The Second Amendment And The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

When the colonists established the bill of rights in the 18th century, the fourth amendment seemed unambiguous. The government needed to respect the right for people to be “secure in their persons, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures and not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” The difference between today and eighteenth century is that many more situations have come up that weren’t around during the eighteenth century. New technologies, new threats and new circumstances have risen that may diminish the restriction on the fourth amendment. In order to protect society from new threats and circumstances in America, the Supreme Court expands their understanding of the fourth amendment to apply it to the new world.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was ratified in 1791 and is an important amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment is “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” (Charles Wetterer). The issue of searching and seizing first originated in Britain in the mid-1700’s where British officers had general warrants to search citizens. While this became an issue for citizens in Britain, it became apparent also in the colonies where British soldiers were searching with only general warrants. Many citizens believed it was an invasion of privacy. So after independence from Britain, and the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was produced. George Mason, an important political figure in Virginia, had written the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and he and other delegates believed the primary purpose of the government was to protect the rights of its citizens. To further that, he believed citizens had the right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures. Once the idea of the Bill of Rights came into play, the Fourth Amendment was also created. The Fourth Amendment actually guarantees two things: You cannot search or seize unless you have a warrant and a

1. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution says, “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 Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which was established in the seventeenth and eighteenth century English common law. Aside from the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to a strong public reaction from some cases back in the 1760s. Two of these cases happened in England and one case happened in the colonies. These cases involved some pamphleteers who would pass out pamphlets to the public in order to spread their word around. These pamphlets however ridiculed the king and his ministers. After finding this out the king issued warrants to have the pamphleteer’s homes ransacked and stripped of all their books and papers. Even back then the pamphleteers knew that their rights

According to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment can be best defined as an amendment providing 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 (Fourth, 2012). In general terms, the Fourth Amendment protects from illegal searches and seizures performed by governmental agents. In 1763, William Pitt stated that under any circumstance or living condition, whether the roof was falling in or the walls allowed wind through, even the King of England was not allowed entrance into ones home (History, 2016).

The first amendment is one of the most used amendments today. Everyone in the world uses it and sometimes takes advantage of it and most times uses it when needed to. The Bill Of Rights was created on December 15th of 1779 and was created to make some rules in the future because no one had the freedom to do anything. Most were punished if they spoke their opinion, they did not even have the right to choose their own religion. But that all changed when James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights which is our first ten amendments. The First Amendment is and always will be the most used amendment today.

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 government’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has been used to amass a collection of phone records, gain access to other records, and carry out search and seizure without a warrant; however, the government has used this approach to find threats to America.

Since its inception, the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution have been expanding and evolving because of new technology. The Fourth Amendment generally protects us all from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, n.d., p. 1199). Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Riley v. California highlight how new technology can lead to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that alter the protections provided by this amendment (Hall, 2015). In 1968, the Supreme Court decision in Katz v. United States fundamentally changed the measure used to judge whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurs due to new technology being utilized by law enforcement. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of Riley v. California is a more relatable case, since it involves technology that the vast majority of us use everyday (Savage, 2014). This case changed the way law enforcement is able to legally search the cellphone of an arrestee, by strengthening the arrestee’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

In the United States every person is afforded rights that must be maintained, if not, it can lead to a prosecution issue. It is difficult to determine nowadays what rights are protected within the Bill of Rights. This was even clearer with the introduction of the Patriot Act, it violated the First and Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. According to Christopher Metzler (2006), the patriot act allows law enforcement the right to search and utilize wiretaps to obtain information that can be used in domestic criminal cases (p. 55). America has given up some of their liberties, which were protected by the constitution in hopes of gain more protection from terrorism. For example the Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure

Despite the Fourth Amendment being created to protect the privacy of the American people, the NSA and other government agencies have put that to the test by using legislation such as the Patriot Act to data mine Americans, keep records on individuals, and create a tension between the American people and the Government, although it has helped the war on

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.

In a similar development, the Supreme Court has already passed legislation involving police and invasive searches using the internet. In their article titled “Privacy's trust gap: a review”, Neil Richards and Woodrow Hartzog compare this law to possible solutions for internet privacy. According to Richards and Hartzog, “For example, the Supreme Court has started to expand the Fourth Amendment to reflect digital technologies, holding that the police must obtain a warrant before they use thermal imaging to search houses, deploy GPS trackers on cars, and search cell phones incident to an otherwise valid arrest.” (12). The essence of Richards and Hartzog’s point is that the government has already passed legislation involving internet privacy. In order to do this, they are building on Fourth Amendment rights. My point then is not only that the U.S. needs more internet privacy protections, but that they also need the right kind. Instead of focusing solely on police practices, the Supreme Court could solve the problem by passing similar legislation involving agencies like the NSA. In this way, using a type of warrant system for analyzing internet data would improve the growing issue of invasive