Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

With adoption and ratification of the point of Rights, Madison's proposal, with some minor revisions, became the twenty-five percent Amendment (O'Brien, 1995, pp. 787-788).

Among the in force(p)s protect by the Fourth Amendment are protection against unreasonable attempt and seizure and different activities by law enforcement personnel before and during an arrest. Any search of the person, home, papers, and effects without either probable cause or a valid search warrant is an invasion of covert which is protected generally under the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment was incorporated into the imputable process clause, expanding the limitations on unreasonable searches and seizures equally to federal, state, and local officers. In Horton v. California 496 US 128 (1990), the Court upheld the Fourth Amendment protection against some(prenominal) searches and seizures. The Justices peakd that searches compromise individuals' interest in privacy and that seizures disrobe individuals of dominion over their person or property.

However, the Constitution does non forbid all searches and seizures. Only unreasonable searches and seizures by agents of the governance are forbidden (Peltrason, 1994, p. 250). According to Peltrason, no constitutional invasion has occurred when jurisprudence officers approach people in airports or other public places and request identification. This situation is not considered detention.

Innocent until proven guilty is part of the philosophic base of the U.S. justice system. If the police are allowed to raid, ransack, and search at will until they find something with which to arrest someone, the basic constitutional right of the citizenry to protection against search without referable process is compromised. In 12 of the apartments, the police had no probable cause to search. The police could not identify the specific criminals and did not know which apartments to search. The justices note that the police bear a heavier burden when needing to demonstrate an imperative need which might justify searches or arrests in close homes without warrants. This heavier burden of proof does not appear to have been met in this case.

Another aspect of the Fourth Amendment deals with the protection of premises and persons. The amendment does not cover all the places where a person has a let right to be. The amendment covers only those places where a person has a countenance expectation of privacy, defined as areas in which society is automatic to accept the expectation. Such areas include hotel rooms, rented homes, first-class mail and headphone booths. Evidence taken from places where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists does not require a warrant. Examples of such places would be refuse bags placed in the street or alley, or telephone numbers dialed into a telephone system.

Although emergency conditions existed because of the earthquake, no soldierly law had been imposed. Emergency conditions do not replace or set aside the usual procedures and operations of law and the courts in an area. The Fourth Amendment is very specific about individuals' rights to protection from searches without due process. While the search was not unreasonable under the circumstances, the panache in which the search was conducted did violate the Fourth Amendment rights of all of the inhabitants of the complex.

Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!