1) The US Supreme Court held the Fourth Amendment only protects the right of privacy for a person when the individual actually expects privacy. In addition, the individual’s expectation of privacy needs to be reasonable. Rosanna have a ten-foot fence surrounding the garden by her house. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents inside of that particular garden, and she expects privacy since she had put up a tall privacy fence for that purpose. However, she has no expectation of privacy for the open field garden located next to the road. This garden is in an open field, an expectation of privacy is unreasonable to a reasonable person. Since she did not put up any fence around this garden, it shows that Rosanna have no expectation of privacy for this garden. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment protection of individual’s expectation of privacy only protects the privacy of Rosanna’s garden next to her house and not the open field garden next to the road. 2) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer pulled Mr. Hightower based on unreasonable suspicion and no probable cause. Mr. Hightower from Metropolis drove a late model Corvette at around 3 am down Main Street does not arouse suspicion to a reasonable person. In addition, the arresting officer did not witness Mr. Hightower commit any traffic violation or any crime and it is legal to drive around the city at 3 am. The officer violated Mr. Hightower’s Fourth Amendment right of protection of unlawful
There are circumstances where people find warrants unconstitutional, but the fourth amendment is ethical through its probable cause, guaranteed privacy, and search warrants. Privacy to citizens makes them feel comfortable and protected. Without the fourth amendment privacy would be unavailable, the citizens of america wouldn’t feel very
Constitutional Issue -4th Amendment affirms "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).
Thomas Jefferson was commenting that the Bill of Rights from governmental. Both the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution had more purpose; The Bill of Rights was meant to give citizens of the U.S. promising freedom to rely on. The Constitution set terms for the U.S. to abide by. The Constitution was established for the people and was a social contract; it was an agreement between the government and society to protect the nation’s deserved rights and liberties. The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution; it is the first ten amendments which were included to guarantee personal rights. One interesting amendment that has tested numerous times through the Supreme Court is the Eighth Amendment: no cruel or unusual punishment, it definitely changed America’s on what punishment is considered cruel and unusual.
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 Kyllo v. United States and United States v. Jones cases follow the adage that the “Fourth Amendment protects people and not places” as shown by Katz v. United States. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” as reaffirmed by Katz v. United States, which shows that it protects people as opposed to places.
As governed by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, we possess the right to be secure in our houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The
The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend IV. Absent a warrant, a search may be reasonable if officers obtain consent of a third party having actual common or apparent authority over the premises or items to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). Actual common authority over property hinges on the “mutual use . . . by parties generally having joint access or control.” Id. at 171 n.7. Should actual authority be absent, the search is still reasonable if officers reasonably believe, based on facts available, that the consenting party had authority over the premises. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 (1990).
Search and seizure started in the Colonial Era when England was ruled by King George. He passed many bills to collect large amounts of revenue from the American colonies. The colonists began to smuggle goods to avoid the taxes from the King. After finding out that there were goods being smuggled King George created legal search warrants called “writs of assistance.” Britain’s authorities could enter one’s home or property without any reason for doing so. They could also interrogate anyone about certain goods and use force to make others cooperate. The American colonists did not like these search and seizures and was one of the factors contributing to the American Revolution.
The Fourth Amendment was written to protect every American’s personal right to privacy by issuing requirement for searches and seizures of one’s person and property. This amendment protects U.S. citizens from having their privacy violated by the government for no reason. According to 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, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by the Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
The Bill of Rights contain protections that are extremely vital to all Americans. The Fourth Amendment, which includes several protections, has one main objective — to protect the privacy of individuals from government intrusions (Davies, 1999). There have been a plethora of cases alleging Fourth Amendment violations. When rendering decisions on Supreme Court cases, the court uses the Warrant Approach, the Reasonableness Approach, and the Special Needs Doctrine as guides (Davies, 1999).
The Fourth Amendment is a difficult one especially when it comes to the safety of people and the different perceptions individuals have, how much proof is acceptable before the authorities decide if there’s probable cause? I found it interesting the loophole the government has being able to collect data on every person which I’m not against especially in this horrible scary world we’re living in currently ("Fourth Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute," n.d.). After reading all the requirements and exclusions of the Fourth Amendment it seems that reasonable doubt is very subjective.
The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the idea that a man’s home is his castle and should be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government.
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 Fourth Amendment is about search and seizure. This amendment is mostly about having one’s own privacy. The amendment has been implemented to protect against unlawful searches and seizure by the federal law enforcement and also by the state. The Fourth Amendment protects the U.S citizen’s right of privacy from invasion. Today, the topic of privacy is frequently and heatedly discussed. As a person who wants to be aware of my rights, I and also the U.S. citizens need to know this amendment better, to know the histories of the amendment, the evolvements of its interpretation and how it plays the role in Supreme Court.