Fourth Amendment

Table of ContentsPage NumbersTitle Page 1Abstract 3Introduction 4Analysis 4-13Conclusion 13References 14 Abstract was introduced in to comfort the independence of American citizens from ` seekes and raptuss . This amendment gave shelterion to the batch from unnecessary harassment from truth en lungement officials . Although initially this amendment had a unanalyzable reference to warrantless awaites and seizures , afterwards the courts interpreted the circumstances much(prenominal) as ` ground and ` verisimilar cause This implied that at that place were m both exceptions to the general die hard of defend hoi polloi from searches and seizures . The changes in the essence and rendition of the clauses were cod to the demand of the twentieth snow and the recent court decisionsIntroductionFourth amendment was introduced to the U .S . character in to give security measure to the people from `search and seizures This amendment was necessary to shelter the interest of the common people against national and render disposals interventions . This will argue that the original inwardness of the legal injury include in the have significantly changed everyplace a plosive consonant of era . The change in the heart of the margins was due to the assume to adjust with the changing needs of the 20th snow . The needs of 20th ascorbic acid were different from those of eighteenth vitamin C . This is be by the fact that in the 20th century , the courts were expected to deal with complex temperamental issues with reference to the meter reading of . The will also purpose that this amendment was required in to protect the interest of the people during the 18th century , tour in the 20th century there was need for different version of the . Whereas in the 18th century there was simple estimation to avoiding general warrants , in the 20th century , enormousness was stipulation to tenablenessableness and probable cause while issuing warrants . The court decisions of 20th century were a nonher important factor modify the original subject matter and intention of clausesAnalysisAlthough the Americans had issued declaration of liberty , there was no formulation for bill of rights , which was ulterior realized by the framers of constitution who tried to fill this gap by introducing a series of amendments . Consequently , the was introduced in to protect the emancipation of somebodys as menti aced in the bill of rights (Killian et .al , 2004 ,. 1000 ) The Amendments also showed the conflict surrounded by federal and submit interests (Killian et .al ,2004 , br 1001 ) in that locationfore , initially the was relevant provided in the topic of federal jurisdiction , while later it came to be applied in the case of states as well as it was realized that states subjects needed this protection (Killian et .al ,2004 , . 1001 ) The need for protection of persons from searches and seizures is proved by the fact that in the colonies , the British officials were give over the authority to enter adept s flakside and search for presents (Killian et .al , 2004 ,br 1282 ) This implies that when America became independent , there was a need to change the law of the land . With this view , case-by-case freedom was protected by introducing the . Over a period of season , especially in the 20th century , different interpretations of clauses of the were given . This is proved by the fact that Harris v . United States allowed `reasonable warrantless searches whereas in the next year , the court ref utilize to consider the evidence that was brought by warrantless searches (Killian et .al , 2004 ,br 1284 ) Apparently , the courts in additionk decisions based on different interpretations of the bourne `reasonablenessThe provides protection to the American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures ( , n .d ,. 1 This implies that searches and seizures are allowed tho after the federal administration provide sufficient reasons for such an action . It is up to the federal authorities to prove the `reasonableness of their act . This amendment was necessary during 18th century , when the American citizens had obtained independence , further there was need for the protection of rights of the AmericansIt is with the view to protect the citizens from arbitrary searches that the was introduced ( , n .d ,. 1 Obviously , the framers of the constitution had certain the US as a federal country , implying that federal government was non allowed to dominate the citizens lives in the states . on that pointfore , initially , this amendment was applied mostly in the case of federal government , although recently , the courts have interpreted to include even the state governments actions ( , n .d ,. 1 ) This provision in the US constitution can only protect the citizens from government action and not from private searches and seizures . This analysis shows that the main intention of the induction fathers of the US was to protect the people from `unreasonable searchesThe original meat of the term , `reasonableness , has changed over a period of time . This is proved by the court cases , which have altered the original meaning of the bill of rights ( , n .d ,br 1 ) In this context , one can suggest that court cases have changed the original meaning of the constitutional furnish . Therefore , the government was compelled to introduce advertise amendments in to clarify its positions concerning a a hardly a(prenominal)(prenominal) constitutional provisionsThe provision unreasonable searches is used not only in simple searches and seizures , but also in issues such as imperious blood scrutiny , unless the organization proves the reasonableness of such testing . This decision was given by the court in the cases such as Schmerber v . California , 384 U .S . 757 , 67 ( , n .d ,br 1 ) The authority is allowed to extract blood samples from an individual only after `reasonableness of such actions are proved . even there are differences between the interpretations of provisions of this amendment . For example , in the case of `free citizens their finger prints cannot be taken without their authorization , whereas fingerprints of arrested people can be taken for routine probe ( , n .d ,. 1 )This shows that in the case of the constitutional provisions , clauses of the constitution are interpreted by the courts This is one reason for the changes that one can notice in the meaning of the terms used in the The general explanation regarding the need for the ordinal amendment is that it was required in to protect the people from `seizes and `searches , which was rampant during the later part of 18th century (Davis , 1999 ,. 547 ) Perhaps , `colonial brouhaha was responsible for this policy being followed by law enforcement authorities . In reality this amendment was required in to avoid `too loose or `general warrants (Davis , 1999 ,. 547 ) This implies that previously , general warrants were used to harass ordinary citizens . Therefore , by inserting `reasonableness clause , an attempt was made to avoid general warrants Now , the law enforcement authorities had to convince the administration regarding the developed need for warrants (Davis , 1999 ,. 547 ) This protected the interest of large numbers of people who suffered under the government activity of `general warrants . It is suggested that is silent concerning the procedure for the use of warrants (Davis , 1999 br. 547 ) For example , it does not specify when the officeholder needs to act against an individual or when the officer should obtain the consent of the judge in to search a person and person s properties (Davis 1999 ,. 547 ) This is because was introduced in 18th century , and the method of looking at the issue of searches and seizures has changed over a period of time . For example , it is suggested that the original intent of the founding fathers was to avoid illegal searches and seizures (Davis , 1999 ,. 547 ) This clause of the constitution protected people from illegal searches and not from legal ones . At the same time , the concept - `reasonableness is given great importance in the modern context . Since this amendment did not clarify a few issues attempt was made by the judiciary to give its protest meaning by giving importance to `reasonableness of any warrant that is issued to search an individual or property of an individual (Davis , 1999 ,. 547The changes in the original meaning of clauses of are represented by the statement : the au indeedtic history of constitutional search and seizure doctrine is not a simple story of persistence rather it is a story that includes drastic change (Davis , 1999 ,. 547 ) The meaning of the terms used in the changed due to a few flaws in the amendment , when looked from a modern perspective . During those days warrantless searches were not allowed , and therefore , the amendment did not address the issue of warrantless searches and seizures . This issue was besides clarified in the future amendments to the constitution and judicial decisions . There were differences between the powers enjoyed by the law enforcement authorities belonging to 18th and 20 centuries (Davis , 1999 ,. 547 ) Therefore , there was need for change in the meaning of the terms related used in There was a transition of insistence from `warrants to `reasonableness clause , which was given greater importance in the modern era (Davis 1999 ,. 547Court decisions , over a period of time , have interpreted the meaning of the terms used by the framers of the amendment . Concerning the warrants it was suggested that they needed to specify the places and persons to be searched ( uprightness , n .d ) This implies that the law of nature officer was not given discretion while using the warrant .

Such interpretation can be seen in the decisions such as Anderson v . Maryland (1976 ) and Coolidge v . New Hampshire (1971 ( right n .d ) The term `reasonable , in the case Wilson v . Arkansas (1995 ) was considered as representing the common law of the time of framing the amendment ( rightfulness , n .d ) The court decisions used the term `probable cause to suggest that a police officer who was convinced that a person had committed a crime , could take action against the unlawful ( law , n .d ) At the same time , when an officer had a suspicion , he possessed the right to head the suspect ( Law , n .d ) This has drastically changed the original meaning of `reasonableness found in the quarter amendment . Such alterations in the original meaning of the terms used in fourth amendment can be seen in the court cases such as Payton v . New York (1980 , Dunaway v . New York (1979 , and Atwater v . city of Lago Vista (2001 ( Law , n .d ) By giving importance to the terms such as `probable cause , the judiciary allowed the police officers either to arrest a person or subject the person to brief enquiryThe protects the people from searches and arrest in their houses . Here houses are not narrowly defined since the term `house includes not only the residential area but also the business premises , inside the house and neighborhood of the house ( characteral Law ,. 224 ) This implies that houses do not mean unending structures only , but include even the temporary structures alike tents and mobile homes (Constitutional Law ,. 224 ) This shows that this amendment gives utmost importance to the protection of the freedom of the residents . The police officer is not allowed unveiling into a house without obtaining proper warrant from the court (Constitutional Law ,. 224 Therefore warrantless entry into a residence is not allowed . At the same time , there are exceptions when warrant less entry of police officers to the residence is allowed . For example , when a building is under fire or when it is important to take immediate action , then warrant less entry of police officer is allowed (Constitutional Law ,. 224 ) The provisions of the imply that police officers are allowed to arrest a person in the open field because the law does not protect the person in an open field (Constitutional Law ,. 224 ) This shows that simplistic understanding of the terminology can be direct . Therefore , there is need for a thorough topic and analysis of the terms used by the constitutionThere are divers(a) exceptions to the search and seizure law found in the . agree to this principle , police officers are allowed to search premises of a person to prevent destruction of evidence , and due to actual consent given by the suspect and implied consent (Constitutional Law , pp . 234-236 ) This shows that freedom enjoyed by the persons from searches is not absolute freedom . This freedom can be violated if the state feels that it needs to deputise in to protect the lives of other citizens and the stateThe criminals or the accused people are given remedy in the form of `exclusionary prevail when the officers enter their houses without warrant (Constitutional Law ,. 237 ) In such cases , exclusionary rule specifies that evidence discovered through warrantless searches should not be considered for the case (Constitutional Law ,. 237 ) This rule has been severely criticized by the legal experts because it allows the criminals to force the court to ignore some strong evidences (Constitutional Law ,. 237 ) The exclusionary rule can be considered as the strongest point in the protect people from searches and seizures . This is because this rule punishes law enforcement officials by refusing to consider the evidence obtained by violating the freedom of individualsConclusion was introduced with a view to protect one of the freedoms assured by the US bill of rights . Over a period of time , there have been a few changes in the meaning and interpretation of the clauses . This is because the scope of has been changing . The 20th century requirements and court decisions were the major factors responsible for the changes in the meaning of the clausesReferencesConstitutional LawDavies , T (1999 . RECOVERING THE ORIGINAL FOURTH AMENDMENTMichigan Law redirect examination , 98 (3 , 547 . Retrieved Friday , April 27 , 2007 from the Business Source Elite database(n .d . Law . Thomas H . Roberts AssociatesP .C . Retrieved April 25 , 2007 , from the Web site hypertext transfer protocol /www .robertslaw .org /4thamend .htmKillian , J .H , Costello , G .A , and Thomas , K .R (2004 . The Constitution of the United States of America : Analysis and Interpretation Analysis of cases mulish by the Supreme Court of the United States . U .S . organization Printing Office : WashingtonThe Lectric Law Library s legal lexicon On . Lectric Law Library . Retrieved April 27 , 2007 , from the Web site hypertext transfer protocol /www .lectlaw .com /def /f081 .htmPAGEPAGE 11 ...If you want to get a dependable essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .