Criminal Justice

1- PURPOSE.
Although the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments are very important to Criminal procedure, the 4th Amendment remains the most important Constitutional check on law enforcement in America. It emphasizes and protects the rights to privacy and free movement central to the American way of life.

2- INSTRUCTIONS

Write a paper about how the 4th amendment protects our rights by limiting the powers of the government, particularly law enforcement.

Because the 4th Amendment is a very broad topic, I suggest that you narrow your focus to one or (at most) a few topics that fall under the umbrella of 4th Amendment issues. Some potential topics include searches of homes, searches of vehicles, warrants, investigative stops, arrests, use of force, special needs searches, “cyber” and digital searches, or any other relevant topics which implicate the 4th Amendment.

Regardless of which subtopic(s) you select, you should discuss any U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertaining to those topic(s).

State a position on any of the issues you address in your paper.

3- Grading rubric
1- Writing Quality: Primarily concerns fundamentals like grammar, syntax, usage, vocabulary, and spelling, but also considers clarity of expression and logical structure. 15 points.

2- Demonstrated Understanding: Does the paper demonstrate a solid understanding of the topic under consideration? Are any positions addressed or endorsed well supported? 10 points.

3- Organization: Is the paper structured in a coherent, comprehensible, and logical manner? 10 points.

4- Sources: Are useful, credible sources used? Are all sources used clearly cited? 5 points.

ANSWER

How The 4th Amendment Protects Our Rights by Limiting the Powers of the Government

The Fourth Amendment secures the rights of the people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects protecting them against unreasonable searches or seizures by the government. This right cannot be violated unless there is a probable cause supported by an oath of affirmation that describes specifically the place to be searched ad the persons or things to be seized (Kerr, 2013). The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was enacted to guarantee freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The fourth Amendment instructs that before a search or seizure is conducted, there must be probable cause. When probable cause can convince a reasonable person in a court of law, a judge can issue a warrant to allow search or seizure of people or property. A powerful government can gain more power to the level that it abuses it to the disadvantage of the people. The people must therefore be protected against overreaches by the government especially in its law enforcement branches.

Searches of Homes

The fourth amendment prohibits searches or seizures inside a home without a warrant because they are presumed unreasonable. Ultimately, the Fourth Amendment is supposed to provide privacy to Americans in their homes. The amendment blocks the government from intruding into people’s homes hence making them get their privacy. The government can, however, permit searches and seizures when all the necessary procedures are fulfilled to secure warrants.

In Weeks v. the United States, 1914, Kansas City police officers went to Fremont Week’s house accessed his hidden key, and used it to search his home. They later seized books, letters, papers, and other items which were later used to convict Weeks of the crime of sending lottery tickets through the U.S. mail. The search and seizure in Week’s home were not supported by a warrant yet the evidence gathered in the search was used to convict him of a crime. Weeks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which reversed the conviction of Weeks because the evidence used to convict him was collected in an illegal process where his fourth amendment rights were violated. Such evidence that was collected illegally could not be admissible in a court of law hence, Weeks’s conviction was overturned. This position was later cemented by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mapp V. Ohio. The court confirmed that illegally seized evidence cannot be used to convict someone of crimes (Hawkins, 2016). This reduces the incentives of law enforcement in conducting illegal searches and seizures because they know anything they acquire from such situations will not be admissible in court.

The Week’s case proved just how the Fourth Amendment was important against preventing the government from convicting a person of a crime while violating their rights to privacy in the process. For a search to be legal in a criminal case, there must be probable cause. Probable cause is used to gain a search warrant which later is used by the government to legally execute the search or seizure. The government has numerous powers through its agents that it can use to gain entry into one’s house without consent. Since the institution is more powerful and can easily execute such activities, the Fourth Amendment checks its powers by ensuring that whenever the rights of an individual are violated by searching their homes without a warrant, they can dispute the use of such evidence. This blocks the government from using shortcuts to convict people of crimes making the process of obtaining evidence in a person’s home extraneous. Law enforcement must follow all legal channels, conduct all due diligence and seek warrants before showing up to collect evidence in one’s residence.

Arrests

The fourth amendment explicitly prohibits arbitrary arrests. Law enforcement cannot just show up and arrest someone without any considerable reason under the law why such is necessary. The fourth amendment prevents law enforcement from needlessly persecuting those they see as undesirables by arbitrarily arresting them and frustrating them using the justice system. The fourth Amendment protects individuals from being stopped and arrested by police officers without valid warrants. Law enforcement is not allowed to enter in personas home and arrest them without valid warrants of arrest. While an arrest warrant is preferred before an arrest is conducted, a warrantless arrest may be justified when there is probable cause and that there is an urgent need before or during the arrest. Law enforcement is required to provide exigent circumstances (Baude & Stern, 2015).

Individual Searches

The fourth amendment also protects against searching an individual without probable cause or warrant. Law enforcement can intrusively search an individual and violate their privacy in the process. even when there is probable cause for searching, the search cannot be that intrusive that it overlaps outside the legal confines. In Safford Unified School District v. Redding, the supreme court held that Redding’s fourth amendment rights were violated when school officials searched her underwear from non-prescription painkillers. The supreme court reasoned that searches and seizures conducted by school officials must be reasonably related to the objectives. The court argued that the officials did not have enough suspicion to warrant a search on Redding’s underwear. The fourth amendment protects against excessive intrusion of one’s person as was done in the case of Redding. The supreme court affirmed that her privacy rights were violated when this search was conducted on her.

There are however circumstances where an individual can be stopped and frisked by law enforcement if there are probable reasons to suspect that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. This precedence was set in the Supreme Court by Terry v. Ohio where the court reasoned that a sop and frisk must be compliant with the fourth amendment by ensuring it is reasonable. The Supreme Court later set the scope for a reasonable stop and frisk in Rodriguez v. the United States in 2015. The court held that it is a violation of the Constitution if a stop exceeds the time needed to handle the issue for which it was made (Donohue, 2016).

Warrant Requirement

The fourth amendment limits the power of the government on the people by requiring the presentation of a warrant before searches and seizures are conducted. Warrants should be obtained for various forms of searches and seizures as required by the fourth amendment. Subject to a few exceptions, a search or seizure is unreasonable where there is no warrant. The involvement of court authority in obtaining warrants ensures that law enforcement does not act arbitrarily and that they provide reasonable grounds before such warrants are provided. The requirement of warrants is a massive check on the powers of the government making them accountable before they can acquire warrants. The court authority determines whether a warrant is provided to search or seize. This ensures that the circumstances are reviewed by neutral individuals who do not have the same goals as law enforcement.

The rise of digital means of searching and seizing information has raised various questions on the extent to which the fourth amendment can be applied (DeZao, 2016). Many government institutions have used various digital means to search and seize information without warrants. However, the Supreme court has confirmed that the fourth amendment protects against warrantless digital searches too. Warrants are required for digital searches such as in the case of Global Positioning System (GPS) searches. Law enforcement must acquire court orders warranting searches on individuals and vehicles is suspected criminals. Lack of a warrant sanctioning this type of search violates the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed this position on January 23, 2012, in the United States v. Jones. The supreme court categorized the use of GPS in searches without a warrant as a violation of the fourth amendment. Therefore, warrants are required for this purpose too.

However, a warrant requirement may be excused in exigent circumstances where a police officer demonstrates cause warranting a search or seizure. In Missouri v. McNeely, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified situations that may allow warrantless searches emanating from sufficient exigency. These circumstances may include emergences like entering a burning home to put out the fire and investigate its origin, the need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a house, and an engagement in the hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect.

References

Baude, W., & Stern, J. Y. (2015). The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment. Harv. L.    Rev., 129, 1821.

DeZao, J. C. (2016). National Security Agency & the 4th Amendment.

Donohue, L. K. (2016). The Original Fourth Amendment. The University of Chicago Law            Review, 1181-1328.

Hawkins, D. (2016). Admissibility of Evidence-4th Amendment. Wisconsin Law Journal.

Kerr, O. S. (2013). The Curious History of Fourth Amendment Searches. The Supreme Court             Review, 2012(1), 67-97.

Mulligan, C., Douma, M., Lind, H., & Quinn, B. (2016). Founding-era translations of the US                   Constitution. Const. Comment., 31, 1.