Violation Of The Fourth Amendment

Chapter seven of the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, and Jonathon Kingsbury, goes into extensive detail on the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. To briefly sum up, the fourth amendment was put into place to help protect United States citizens against unreasonable or unlawful use of search and seizures (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 198-199). That being aforementioned, many individuals believe that there are various exceptions to the fourth amendment. Is this belief true? According to the article titled, Another Hit to the Fourth Amendment by the New York Times Editorial Board,

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

Unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures should not take place because it violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, by not being justified by law. The NSA goes to the FISA court to get the kind of warrant needed for going through metadata, if the warrant is issued, then the NSA may go through the metadata. When the NSA goes to the FISA court, it means that the surveillance requires judicial oversight. Also, If the “intelligence committee” wants to listen to a phone call, then they have to take special measures such as a federal judge. The intelligence committee may not just listen to a phone call, all that the intelligence committee can do without taking special measures is look at the length of a phone call. Warrantless

Some people are saying that letting the government go through all your texts, emails, and call are violating the Fourth Amendment. In some cases I do feel that they are but in others I don't. On one side I feel that the government just wants to project the US form another attack like 9/11. But I also feel that you really don't have any secrets from the government because of them going through everything you've sent.

Law enforcement officers are known to “hunt for property or communications believed to be evidence of crime, and the act of taking possession of this property,” also known as conducting a search and seizure. It is a necessary exercise in the ongoing pursuit of criminals. Search and seizures are used to produce evidence for the prosecution of alleged criminals. Protecting citizens from arbitrary searches, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is our right to limit and deny any unreasonable search and seizure. More often than not, police officers tend to take advantage of their authority by the use of coercion. Although it is unlawful, most citizens do not know what police officers can and cannot do in respect of their human rights.

The Bill of Rights is a necessary piece of the Constitution, written to protect the people of the United States of America. The fourth amendment in particular is designed to protect one from unreasonable searches and seizures of ones property. A search or seizure is considered unreasonable without an issued search warrant. However, a peace officer may search without having a search warrant if there is probable cause. According to Cornell University Law School “The Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure of electronic devices.” The fourth amendment does have rules set for protection of telephonic and electronic activities requiring search warrants, but the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center has altered this law.

This a direct violation of of the fourth amendment in the Bill of rights. This amendment states that there is no search or seizures without warrants. Therefore I as a citizen of the United States of America am allowed to have my personal property in my personal bag without it being searched or taken away from me. This was one of the most important laws to create to the founding fathers who were tired of unwarranted arrest and seizure of possession. So, i believe this is unconstitutional and a violation of my civil and unalienable rights ( that means no person can take them away).

Although the Constitution gives us this freedom, there are instances when police and government violate it. For instance, a case concerning desecration of the fourth amendment is Mapp V. Ohio. This situation was taken place in Cleveland, Ohio and involved police entering a Citizen named Mapp’s house without a search warrant. The police entered Mapp’s basement because they believed he was involved in sheltering a suspected bomber. At court, Mapp insisted that her fourth amendment rights had been sullied and the high court said evidence was detained unlawfully. Without a search warrant, it could not be used in criminal trials. This case is a perfect example of our rights being dishonored by police. In conclusion, the court modified and

The US Patriot Act was a very controversial act that was created after the events of September 11, 2011. Although many sanctions under the US Patriot Act grossly violated the fourth amendment in several ways, congress felt it was necessary to protect the nation. Sections that violated the fourth amendment are: the sneak and peek warrants included in section 213, roving/warrantless wiretapping of section 206, and finally trap and trace searches of section 214. These are just a few of the many violations I can account for. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution in 1791. It protects people from unlawful searches and seizures. This means that the police can't search you or your house without a warrant or probable cause. Are we truly willing to override the Constitution in the name of national security?

The government has the power over many things but this time they went a bit too far and took advantage of their power by spying on us. Is it a conspiracy or a fact?The US government with assistance from major telecommunication carriers including At&T , has engaged in massive,illegal dragnet surveillance of the domestic communications and communication records of millions of ordinary Americans getting information which i think at times it can be necessary.Someone can be plotting a terrorist attack , murder or robbing a bank. Some say the NSA(National Security Agency) has invented futuristic “toys” they have become creative finding new ways to get Intel on us.

Did you know Evidence that is obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment is usually not admissible in court? It’s actually interesting how this works. The amendment i chose is the 4th one because i like my persons and properties protected. This right was put in the bill of rights because there were to many unreasonable searches and seizures. To me i feel this right is used today to keep the searches and seizures under control. I think the 4th amendment may be under attack by the officers who do illegal searches and violate the amendments.

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).)

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

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 Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) which is followed by the United States Constitution belongs to the part of the Bill of Rights and will protect each and every individual from being compelled to witnesses against themselves in all sorts of criminal cases. "Pleading the Fifth" is a sort of informal term used generally for invoking the right which allows the witnesses to decline the chance of answering the questions which may lead the answers that might incriminate them, and basically it wouldn’t provide any criteria to suffer a penalty to propound the right. This sort of evidentiary privilege makes sure that defendants generally the accused cannot be coercing to become the witnesses at their own trials. If, however, by any