What Are The Arguments Against 4th Amendment

In establishing a § 1983 claim the claimant must first determine which constitutional right was violated. In this case, Dave Douglas, Taylor Reveley, and George Walkers claims fall under the Fourth Amendment because they have not been arrested or detained for pretrial. Each plaintiff will argue that the police officers seized them unreasonably and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. First, the claimant must establish that the government actor was acting under “the color of law.” In this case, the police officers were acting in their official capacity as on-duty cops. HotCop, as a possible contractor with law enforcement may also operate under the color of law and therefore be subject to suit as well. This will be addressed further later in the memo. Each potential plaintiff and the possible defenses to their claims is addressed below.

The Fourth Amendment is an important part of our constitution and protecting U.S. citizens’ rights, but has recently been weakened and worm holed by the government. The amendment states that there has to be a search warrant issued in order to be able to gain access to a U.S. citizens personal records. Since the 60’s however, this rule has been bypassed to allow the NSA to have the ability to search homes and personal records without a search warrant. Modern technology has negatively effected the amendment, and has been one of the most recent cases of the amendment being worm holed. When the “private information” is put on social media site, the information then belongs to the site, not the user. This allows the government to get on the site,

One of the many freedoms we enjoy, as Americans is the right that protects us from unreasonable search and seizures; as well as the necessity for a search warrant when law enforcement wishes to search someone’s property. This right is known as the Fourth Amendment and it contains two clauses: the first one is the reasonableness clause, which states that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The second part is the warrant clause, which states that a warrant must be issued upon the finding of probable cause. It must then be supported by an affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and what us intending to be found.

As we grow up, there are certain rights that we develop as people as we age. For example, at the age of 18 we are given the right to vote in elections as well as purchase tobacco if we so choose too. But there are certain rights, given to all citizens of the United States, independent of age, that also can not be taken away. As an example, the 1st amendment allows for the freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition. The 14th amendment gives citizenship to all people who are born or naturalized in the United States. In today’s day in age however, one amendment has become quite controversial, the 4th amendment. This amendment protects people against unreasonable and unlawful search and seizure and that warrants may not be issued unless there is probable cause. What becomes controversial now is whether or not this amendment includes the protection of what a person says or does on the internet as well as what a person says to another well calling another person. The 4th amendment reads, “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 its current phrasing it is vague enough to push the boundaries of what is protected and what isn’t. For this reason it needs to be updated to fit

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides 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 does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had long required that the claimant must prove that he/she was the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

To begin with, the most important parts of the 4th amendment is the right to have the sense of security of your property and your individual rights . For instance a preceden is Katz v ohio this shows that the government can go too far with their search and seizure procedure. Today there is many cases in which the government is not using a search warrant when they are searching someone. Another reason is the writs of assistance case which established that the government does not take into consideration the 4th amendment for years the colonies got their ships searched and they were ran over by the government until the 4th amendment became a bill of right. How they established this case is they searched a ship for smuggled goods.

The 4th amendment has been tested in the Supreme Court.”Police officers in Kansas City, Missouri went to the house of Mr. Fremont Weeks and used his hidden key to enter

1. Identify and describe the three possible alternatives for applying the Fourth Amendment to “stop and frisk” situations. Also, identify which alternative the U.S. Supreme Court adopted and explain why.

Is the 4th amendment still valuable in modern society since the 4th amendment can no longer be directly applied with the rise of new technology? 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”(Fourth Amendment). This amendment originally was created to protect houses from being raided uncontrollably in the mid 17th century. Obviously in the 17th century technology such as the internet did not exist yet, so important documents and information were on paper. Therefore all the significant documents were stored in a house, or building making it easy to secure them. Similarly because of the 4th Amendment their house couldn’t be searched without a warrant so all of their important documents would be safe. Fast forward 300 years many things have changed and society is still using an outdated document to judge modern society which calls for an evolved amendment. For example, the 4th Amendment is no longer directly viable since the internet and phones weren’t created during the time period the Bill of Rights was made. Ultimately the 4th Amendment is extremely valuable because it provides us the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, which can be inferred

Question one. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Just imagine a scenario where an individual is sitting in their house, and the police barge in and search the entire premises and the individual with no warrant or merit to the search? That type of life would be perverse on itself, let alone frightening. Cases like Katz, Jones, and Oliver exemplify why the Fourth Amendment is so important to our everyday lives and wellbeing.

Many years ago, the United States Constitution was created as a guideline for the newly formed government to run this country as well as secure protection rights of all citizens. Since then, there have been many incidents that question the violation of citizens’ rights under the Constitution, such as the violation of the fourth amendment which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures especially in the school system and on college campuses. The fourth amendment states, “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” (O’Brien, 2014). As this pertains to those citizens who are students, whether it be in the primary, secondary, or post-secondary setting, the question that unveils itself is whether or not students are entitled to their constitutional rights, in this case, the fourth amendment’s rights, while in the school environment.

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