Fourth Amendment Impact On Law Enforcement

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

On his website, a Utah DUI Attorney, David Rosenbloom speaks about violations of the Fourth Amendment.  He states that police officers “pay little attention to the fourth amendment… [because] it is not a self-enforcing right, such as the freedom of speech” (Rosenbloom).  In short, if a citizen believes his or her rights were violated and they were illegally searched/things were seized from them, they must “ask a court to examine the case and apply the fourth

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

A traffic stop for a suspected violation of law is a ‘‘seizure’’ of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 536. Seizures based on mistakes of fact may be reasonable. Id. at 532. All parties agree that to justify this type of seizure, officers need only ‘‘reasonable suspicion’’—that is, ‘‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped’’ of breaking the law. To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them “fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.” Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. Id. at 536. Courts do not examine the subjective understanding of the particular officer involved. The Fourth Amendment tolerates mistakes and preserves probable cause if "those mistakes—whether of fact or of law—[are] objectively reasonable." Id.

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

Policing methods have unequivocally expanded throughout the years with several different amendments from the U.S. Constitution like the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment. Through these amendments, many speculate if expanding law enforcement methods are bypassing the rights of the U.S. Constitution.

Police are violating the 4th amendment which is protection from unreasonable searches and seizes. Police officers are stopping and frisking black and latino people just because of the color of their skin or what they are wearing. The police officers are harassing them and stopping them in public and leaving them with little to no explanation. Donnel Baird a community organizer in Brownsville, New York believes that real criminals are too advanced to be out in the public's eye and out for police officers to stop and search them to actually find something on them that could help them. When it comes to the topic of policing, most of us will readily agree that they are necessary to help keep peace in the community. Where this agreement usually

Protection of the citizens should be a crucial part of its aims in regards to the fourth amendment. According to Crespo, “self-regulation of law enforcement” should be considered the issue of keeping surveillance of public space. Warrantless searches are subject only to few limited exceptions, but other than that it presumptively unreasonable to go ahead with it. The Supreme Court has held that warrantless beeper monitoring is permissible on a public highway, not including the private residence. Therefore, the issue of threshold has been a serious matter ever since. The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule allows criminal defendants to suppress "fruit of the poisonous tree" , considering evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure that

CThe fourth amendment effective in 1791 and was adopted by Congress as part of the Bill of Rights. The fourth amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, residences, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Also, no warrants shall be issued, unless there is probable cause that is supported by oath by describing the place to be searched. The fourth amendment is utilized in law enforcement by obtaining warrants to conduct searches and seizures. For example, the Weeks v. U.S. was a first landmark case that addressed the search and seizure in 1914. Additionally, the exclusionary rule holds that evidence of an offense that is collected by law enforcement in violation of defendant's constitutional rights

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 fourth amendment applies only to full searches and arrests; so short of full arrest and searches, officers’ discretion controls their contacts with individuals in public places.

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures. Only the ones that are considered unreasonable under the law. That is why it is my favorite amendment.

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

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).