The fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights is really a check and balance for police discretion. The fourth amendment is the right of 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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The two most prevalent legal concepts present are searches and seizures and probable cause. Probable cause is when the officer must know of facts and circumstances that would lead to “the belief that an offense has been or is being committed”. The officer has to prove that the subject is guilty. For example, during a DUI case the officer has to exhibit all of the correct components of field sobriety for the case to stand in court. There has to be a reason why the person is getting arrested and even stopped. The four things that provide probable cause are personal observations, information, evidence, and association. The exclusionary rule keeps the officers from using evidence against the subject that they unrightfully seized. Since the constitution is difficult to comprehend, the exclusionary rule makes it able to be understood by all. Fruit of the poisoned tree is evidence that is obtained illegally and not following the fourth amendment. The rule makes the police gather evidence the correct way so the cases uphold in court. The role of privacy in searches is crucial. The role of privacy is that every citizen has reasonable expectation to privacy. There is a two-pronged test for a person’s expectation of privacy. These are: 1. The individual must prove that she or he expected privacy, 2. Society must recognize that expectation is reasonable. Search and seizure is laid out very particularly. The officer must get a search warrant to search a specific person, place, etc. The officer has to have the right circumstances to get a warrant. Once the officer has a search warrant they must obtain items that result from crime, inherently illegal, “Evidence”, or used in the committing of the crime. However an officer does not have to always have a warrant, they just must have consent by the subject of the search. The fourth amendment protects both police officers and civilians by laying guidelines and regulations to insure everyone’s privacy.
This is a very good summary of the 4th amendment and how it works in today's life. I am glad that it's not as strict as it can be and it has the exceptions to it. The one exception I like the most is the "good faith" exception because I bet in areas that use search warrants a lot I bet this happens a good portion of the time. If they didn't have this exception think of how many cases wouldn't have been solved and how much evidence that would have been thrown out. JE002
Agreed. "Good faith" is a very strong way to keep crime in check. Although it can often prove faulty, I believe the positive outcomes are worth for more than the losses of the negative outcomes. There has got to be a few exceptions to all laws, and the "good faith" clause is a beautiful example of such exceptions. - AJC002
In today's society privacy is important. You don't want everyone up in your business when you are going about your day. if you are just walking down the street without the fourth amendment in place an officer would be able to come up to you and search you for no given reason and that in my opinion is invading my privacy. The fourth amendment helps you have space and makes them have to have a reason to search you. AW002
I found this very interesting that the 4th amendment has really gone all the way back to when the British was here and in charge. When they had it back then they could pretty much just hand you a paper and say they want to search your house and when you look to what we have now it is very cool to look and see how far we have come over the years. Now we are very strict and you have to be very detailed in your search warrant to get what you want and where you are going to look for what you want. It's a great idea for having this amendment but I think it goes a little to far like when the phone tapped the public phone booth. I know you expect to have your privacy in there but it is still a public phone booth and more people than you just use that phone. I thought they should have been able to use that evidence in the case but I also see the other side on why they couldn't use it. JE002
I agree with this. I think when it comes to a situation like that with the phone booth it is considered public. If there wasn't a tap to invade your privacy what is stoping the next person waiting for the phone listening to you as well, isn't that considered an invasion of privacy? But beings a court ruled that it violated the fourth amedment it couldn't be used against the person. Ciaccio002
I agree that this is a very important amendment. This protects us from police just walking in and searching through, and taking whatever they please. I think that the rulings on whether or not certain evidence can be used in the court of law are a little bit confusing and honestly could go either way with any given case. gh_blackhawks002
I agree with you. The fourth amendment is a very important and much needed amendment. The amendment protects everyone from randomly just having police barge in their house and search through all their belongings for no reason. The amendment frankly keeps the Government in line and keeps it from evading our privacy. Steve002
The fourth amendment is an ingenious cautionary measure towards corrupt officials. With this amendment, law enforcement (or anyone else under federal employment) cannot perform search and seizures in your home unless they have a warrant to do so. Of course there are a few loopholes for this rule, like the Plain View Clause, however this amendment heavily protects the citizens of our great country. Back in the 13 colonies days, British troops could command citizens to garrison the troops, and the troops had all rights to take and use what they pleased within the homes of the citizens. This seems very unfair, and unfair it is. People were not happy, by any means, and that is a large reason why the revolution came around. Now in this video, a case is presented where a citizen's use of a public telephone was recorded and that information was used against them in court. The police did not have a warrant to seize this information and, due to law, this evidence was obtained illegally and therefore invalid and unusable in court. Personally, I think it is kinda bologna that they can't use that information. Either way, the fourth amendment is pretty great and you should thank it every time you wake up and still have your personal belongings. - AJC002
I completely agree with your statement. I believe that if there is significant evidence or strong evidence to be able to convict someone of a crime, no matter how it was seized, it should be allowed to be valid evidence to be able to be used in a court case. But there are two sides to this and I can understand how this evidence obtained illegally would give the convicted an unfair trial. CAE002
I agree AJC002, the evidence should have been considered fair game. Even though it was obtained illegally, it proved the guilt of the person. Because they would not use the illegally obtained information, they let a criminal go back into the streets. I, personally, wouldn't be happy knowing a criminal was let loose into my neighborhood. zmw002
This video shows just how far the fourth amendment has come since its infancy days with the British. Back then, people did not have too many rights. Therefore, the police could just say "hey, I think you might be involved in a crime that occurred, I'm going to search you and your property" with out any justification that the person had any involvement or probable cause. With the emergence of the fourth amendment, which states that "the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" this gave the citizens their rights to be protected from unlawful searches. It also states that no search warrant should be issued unless probable cause is present. Because of this, it can be a bit more challenging for an officer to obtain a search warrant, but there are some exceptions to this. The first is the Plain View Doctrine, which allows police officers to search someone or someone's property if they see something to indicate they might be a threat. For example, a cop pulls you over for speeding and sees there's a pistol in plain view in the back seat. This will allow the officer to then search the vehicle rather than obtain a search warrant. This makes sense because why would you want to wait and go through the process of obtaining a warrant and letting this person who you know is armed free into the public, rather than detaining them right there and keeping not only yourself safe, but the public as well. I don't particularly agree with the exclusionary rule because I believe that if there is strong evidence that is gathered, regardless of how it was seized, it should be able to be used in a trial to convict a person. I also can see how this can be a violation of the fourth amendment. CAE002
The Fourth Amendment prevents citizens of the United States from being unreasonably searched by the authorities. Basically, it's supposed to prevent police officers from being able to search you and take any contraband just because they feel like it or they have a hunch. That is what is currently going on with stop and frisk. Cops are seeing minorities and searching them, claiming they had a hunch that they might be committing some sort of crime. However, in this case some information indicating that a certain individual was guilty was illegally obtained via a telephone, and due to this amendment it was ruled unconstitutional and had to be thrown out. I think it's a little silly, seeing as it blatantly proved he was guilty, but whatever the court says must go. zmw002
I completely agree with you. the stop and frisk is a joke, the only people they target are the minorities. its racial profiling, and the crazy thing about it is, I was reading an article the other day and it said in 2011 685,724 people were stopped amd frisked and 605,328 were totally innocent. 350,743 were black. 223,740 were Hispanic 54,810 were white - only 9% camvilla002
The Fourth Amendment basically protects us the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. It's suppose to protect us from the police from being able to illegally search and then take objects without probable cause. I feel that the police are overstepping their right to use the stop and frisk because it creates a sort of loop hole in the fourth amendment by being able to "search" you by the use of frisking because they had the suspicion that you were doing something illegal. I think if the Fourth Amendment was used in every case though alot of bad people would be free right now. Meaning that everything the police seized would be thrown out and the person could walk. Ciaccio002
I agree that stop and frisk is creating a "loop hole" in the 4th amendment. It gives the police that right to search your person with no reason or warning other than they are "suspicious" of them. It completely oversteps the right of the law and violates the right of citizens, and eventually it was proven unconstitutional. JAG002
I think that it is extremely interesting to look at the history of how our laws are made. It is very interesting to me that the 4th amendment, which protects against unlawful searches and seizures, has ties to before we were even a country. When the United States were still only British colonies any persons home could be searched by the British military with no warning or reason. This prompted us to create the 4th amendment in our Bill of Rights. Today this means that a persons home cannot be searched with a valid search warrant. This warrant must be very specific as well, it must state the home being searched and what exactly they are looking for. While searching, no area of the home can be searched if it isn't a reasonable area that what they are looing for could be. It also states that any item found in an illegal manner cannot be used in court, or "fruit of a poisoned tree." This means that if evidence is found during an illegal search then that evidence must be thrown out. There are exceptions however, like "inevitable discovery" and "good faith" JAG002
i agree, by watching this video it showed how this country used to be and who we are today. when putting the 4th amendment into the bill of rights. i wouldn't want someone searching my home for no reason. It isn't someones right to do so, its a validation of privacy and its trespassing. i am glad we are protected by this amendment. aaap_cougs002
This video is covering the 4th amendment, which basically protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. The origins of this come from the British and their writ of assistance. Their writ of assistance was unjust in a way that is similar to our unconstitutional stop and frisk. They were without probable cause and without any true reason, searching through people stuff. The 4th amendment explicitly gives us the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against these unreasonable searches and seizures. gh_blackhawks002
while watching this video it explains the fourth amendment which is the right of 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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. this video is interesting by showing the history of the 4th amendment how when the US were British colonies anybody home could be searched by the British military with no warning or reason. i love history and i love learning about it about how our country used to be and what is has come to today. aaap_cougs002
Its amazing to know that the british basically developed the concept for the 4th amendement! Search and Seizure play an important role in our person well being, nobody wants the police just waltzing into their home and going through and taking their stuff. so that's what the 4th amendment of the bill of rights protects us from. everyone is entitled to a reasonable right to privacy, unless a search warrant is obtained by the Law Enforcement to search your premises. If the police search your home and find stuff to potentially bust you, but lack the warrant to do so.. well that evidence will be ruled inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. camvilla002
This video was about the fourth amendment. This amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. What this means is that police cannot walk in your house without a warrant and go though your possessions in hope of finding illegal content. The fourth amendment was created in the 1700s when the United States was still under British colonies and anyone's house could be searched by the British army. There was no warning or reason to it. This caused the United States to create the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment particularly gives people, "the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against these unreasonable searches and seizures". Steve002
The fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights is really a check and balance for police discretion. The fourth amendment is the right of 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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The two most prevalent legal concepts present are searches and seizures and probable cause.
ReplyDeleteProbable cause is when the officer must know of facts and circumstances that would lead to “the belief that an offense has been or is being committed”. The officer has to prove that the subject is guilty. For example, during a DUI case the officer has to exhibit all of the correct components of field sobriety for the case to stand in court. There has to be a reason why the person is getting arrested and even stopped. The four things that provide probable cause are personal observations, information, evidence, and association.
The exclusionary rule keeps the officers from using evidence against the subject that they unrightfully seized. Since the constitution is difficult to comprehend, the exclusionary rule makes it able to be understood by all. Fruit of the poisoned tree is evidence that is obtained illegally and not following the fourth amendment. The rule makes the police gather evidence the correct way so the cases uphold in court.
The role of privacy in searches is crucial. The role of privacy is that every citizen has reasonable expectation to privacy. There is a two-pronged test for a person’s expectation of privacy. These are: 1. The individual must prove that she or he expected privacy, 2. Society must recognize that expectation is reasonable.
Search and seizure is laid out very particularly. The officer must get a search warrant to search a specific person, place, etc. The officer has to have the right circumstances to get a warrant. Once the officer has a search warrant they must obtain items that result from crime, inherently illegal, “Evidence”, or used in the committing of the crime. However an officer does not have to always have a warrant, they just must have consent by the subject of the search.
The fourth amendment protects both police officers and civilians by laying guidelines and regulations to insure everyone’s privacy.
oasis_002, adele_002, rocker_002, okc_002, Kt_002
This is a very good summary of the 4th amendment and how it works in today's life. I am glad that it's not as strict as it can be and it has the exceptions to it. The one exception I like the most is the "good faith" exception because I bet in areas that use search warrants a lot I bet this happens a good portion of the time. If they didn't have this exception think of how many cases wouldn't have been solved and how much evidence that would have been thrown out. JE002
DeleteAgreed. "Good faith" is a very strong way to keep crime in check. Although it can often prove faulty, I believe the positive outcomes are worth for more than the losses of the negative outcomes. There has got to be a few exceptions to all laws, and the "good faith" clause is a beautiful example of such exceptions. - AJC002
DeleteIn today's society privacy is important. You don't want everyone up in your business when you are going about your day. if you are just walking down the street without the fourth amendment in place an officer would be able to come up to you and search you for no given reason and that in my opinion is invading my privacy. The fourth amendment helps you have space and makes them have to have a reason to search you. AW002
DeleteI found this very interesting that the 4th amendment has really gone all the way back to when the British was here and in charge. When they had it back then they could pretty much just hand you a paper and say they want to search your house and when you look to what we have now it is very cool to look and see how far we have come over the years. Now we are very strict and you have to be very detailed in your search warrant to get what you want and where you are going to look for what you want. It's a great idea for having this amendment but I think it goes a little to far like when the phone tapped the public phone booth. I know you expect to have your privacy in there but it is still a public phone booth and more people than you just use that phone. I thought they should have been able to use that evidence in the case but I also see the other side on why they couldn't use it. JE002
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. I think when it comes to a situation like that with the phone booth it is considered public. If there wasn't a tap to invade your privacy what is stoping the next person waiting for the phone listening to you as well, isn't that considered an invasion of privacy? But beings a court ruled that it violated the fourth amedment it couldn't be used against the person. Ciaccio002
DeleteI agree that this is a very important amendment. This protects us from police just walking in and searching through, and taking whatever they please. I think that the rulings on whether or not certain evidence can be used in the court of law are a little bit confusing and honestly could go either way with any given case.
Deletegh_blackhawks002
I agree with you. The fourth amendment is a very important and much needed amendment. The amendment protects everyone from randomly just having police barge in their house and search through all their belongings for no reason. The amendment frankly keeps the Government in line and keeps it from evading our privacy. Steve002
DeleteThe fourth amendment is an ingenious cautionary measure towards corrupt officials. With this amendment, law enforcement (or anyone else under federal employment) cannot perform search and seizures in your home unless they have a warrant to do so. Of course there are a few loopholes for this rule, like the Plain View Clause, however this amendment heavily protects the citizens of our great country. Back in the 13 colonies days, British troops could command citizens to garrison the troops, and the troops had all rights to take and use what they pleased within the homes of the citizens. This seems very unfair, and unfair it is. People were not happy, by any means, and that is a large reason why the revolution came around.
ReplyDeleteNow in this video, a case is presented where a citizen's use of a public telephone was recorded and that information was used against them in court. The police did not have a warrant to seize this information and, due to law, this evidence was obtained illegally and therefore invalid and unusable in court. Personally, I think it is kinda bologna that they can't use that information. Either way, the fourth amendment is pretty great and you should thank it every time you wake up and still have your personal belongings. - AJC002
I completely agree with your statement. I believe that if there is significant evidence or strong evidence to be able to convict someone of a crime, no matter how it was seized, it should be allowed to be valid evidence to be able to be used in a court case. But there are two sides to this and I can understand how this evidence obtained illegally would give the convicted an unfair trial. CAE002
DeleteI agree AJC002, the evidence should have been considered fair game. Even though it was obtained illegally, it proved the guilt of the person. Because they would not use the illegally obtained information, they let a criminal go back into the streets. I, personally, wouldn't be happy knowing a criminal was let loose into my neighborhood. zmw002
DeleteThis video shows just how far the fourth amendment has come since its infancy days with the British. Back then, people did not have too many rights. Therefore, the police could just say "hey, I think you might be involved in a crime that occurred, I'm going to search you and your property" with out any justification that the person had any involvement or probable cause. With the emergence of the fourth amendment, which states that "the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" this gave the citizens their rights to be protected from unlawful searches. It also states that no search warrant should be issued unless probable cause is present. Because of this, it can be a bit more challenging for an officer to obtain a search warrant, but there are some exceptions to this. The first is the Plain View Doctrine, which allows police officers to search someone or someone's property if they see something to indicate they might be a threat. For example, a cop pulls you over for speeding and sees there's a pistol in plain view in the back seat. This will allow the officer to then search the vehicle rather than obtain a search warrant. This makes sense because why would you want to wait and go through the process of obtaining a warrant and letting this person who you know is armed free into the public, rather than detaining them right there and keeping not only yourself safe, but the public as well. I don't particularly agree with the exclusionary rule because I believe that if there is strong evidence that is gathered, regardless of how it was seized, it should be able to be used in a trial to convict a person. I also can see how this can be a violation of the fourth amendment. CAE002
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth Amendment prevents citizens of the United States from being unreasonably searched by the authorities. Basically, it's supposed to prevent police officers from being able to search you and take any contraband just because they feel like it or they have a hunch. That is what is currently going on with stop and frisk. Cops are seeing minorities and searching them, claiming they had a hunch that they might be committing some sort of crime. However, in this case some information indicating that a certain individual was guilty was illegally obtained via a telephone, and due to this amendment it was ruled unconstitutional and had to be thrown out. I think it's a little silly, seeing as it blatantly proved he was guilty, but whatever the court says must go. zmw002
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. the stop and frisk is a joke, the only people they target are the minorities.
Deleteits racial profiling, and the crazy thing about it is, I was reading an article the other day and it said in 2011 685,724 people were stopped amd frisked and 605,328 were totally innocent.
350,743 were black.
223,740 were Hispanic
54,810 were white - only 9%
camvilla002
The Fourth Amendment basically protects us the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. It's suppose to protect us from the police from being able to illegally search and then take objects without probable cause. I feel that the police are overstepping their right to use the stop and frisk because it creates a sort of loop hole in the fourth amendment by being able to "search" you by the use of frisking because they had the suspicion that you were doing something illegal. I think if the Fourth Amendment was used in every case though alot of bad people would be free right now. Meaning that everything the police seized would be thrown out and the person could walk. Ciaccio002
ReplyDeleteI agree that stop and frisk is creating a "loop hole" in the 4th amendment. It gives the police that right to search your person with no reason or warning other than they are "suspicious" of them. It completely oversteps the right of the law and violates the right of citizens, and eventually it was proven unconstitutional.
DeleteJAG002
I think that it is extremely interesting to look at the history of how our laws are made. It is very interesting to me that the 4th amendment, which protects against unlawful searches and seizures, has ties to before we were even a country. When the United States were still only British colonies any persons home could be searched by the British military with no warning or reason. This prompted us to create the 4th amendment in our Bill of Rights. Today this means that a persons home cannot be searched with a valid search warrant. This warrant must be very specific as well, it must state the home being searched and what exactly they are looking for. While searching, no area of the home can be searched if it isn't a reasonable area that what they are looing for could be. It also states that any item found in an illegal manner cannot be used in court, or "fruit of a poisoned tree." This means that if evidence is found during an illegal search then that evidence must be thrown out. There are exceptions however, like "inevitable discovery" and "good faith"
ReplyDeleteJAG002
i agree, by watching this video it showed how this country used to be and who we are today. when putting the 4th amendment into the bill of rights. i wouldn't want someone searching my home for no reason. It isn't someones right to do so, its a validation of privacy and its trespassing. i am glad we are protected by this amendment. aaap_cougs002
DeleteThis video is covering the 4th amendment, which basically protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. The origins of this come from the British and their writ of assistance. Their writ of assistance was unjust in a way that is similar to our unconstitutional stop and frisk. They were without probable cause and without any true reason, searching through people stuff. The 4th amendment explicitly gives us the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against these unreasonable searches and seizures.
ReplyDeletegh_blackhawks002
while watching this video it explains the fourth amendment which is the right of 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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. this video is interesting by showing the history of the 4th amendment how when the US were British colonies anybody home could be searched by the British military with no warning or reason. i love history and i love learning about it about how our country used to be and what is has come to today. aaap_cougs002
ReplyDeleteIts amazing to know that the british basically developed the concept for the 4th amendement! Search and Seizure play an important role in our person well being, nobody wants the police just waltzing into their home and going through and taking their stuff. so that's what the 4th amendment of the bill of rights protects us from. everyone is entitled to a reasonable right to privacy, unless a search warrant is obtained by the Law Enforcement to search your premises. If the police search your home and find stuff to potentially bust you, but lack the warrant to do so.. well that evidence will be ruled inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. camvilla002
ReplyDeleteThis video was about the fourth amendment. This amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. What this means is that police cannot walk in your house without a warrant and go though your possessions in hope of finding illegal content. The fourth amendment was created in the 1700s when the United States was still under British colonies and anyone's house could be searched by the British army. There was no warning or reason to it. This caused the United States to create the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment particularly gives people, "the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against these unreasonable searches and seizures". Steve002
ReplyDelete