FREE ESSAY ON 4TH AMENDMENT

4TH AMENDMENT

4th Amendment 
In the late 1700's the 4th Amendment was written because of strong objections to the
Writs of Assistance or general warrants. The Writs Assistance gave officials the right to
enter any home and seize belongings without a reasonable cause. (Grolier Encyclopedia)
The 4th amendment was ratified in the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1771. This amendment
protects the people's right to privacy and security. (Encarta Online) 
The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the 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 the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized." (Encarta Online) In the court case of Katz v. United States it was
said that, "the 4th Amendment protects the people and not certain areas against search
and seizure." (Katz v. U.S.) Without this amendment people would have no claim over their
personal privacy, or security. Any officer could enter homes and take any evidence that
could be used to make an arrest or that could be used for prosecution in court. 
In order for police or any other higher authority to search and seize evidence from a
suspect legally, it is required that a judge must grant a search warrant. (Encarta
Online) The warrant authorizes the officer to seize particularly described items and to
bring them before the court that issued the warrant. In common law, search warrants were
used mainly to discover stolen property. In 
modern law, they have a variety of items, including intoxicating liquors, gambling
implements, counterfeiters' tools, burglars' tools, smuggled goods, obscene literature,
narcotics, illegal firearms and any article the possession of which is a crime or which
may be used in evidence. (Encarta Online) The warrant must specify the place where the
search is to be made and the property to be seized. An officer cannot get a warrant from
a judge in any circumstance. (Grolier Encyclopedia) The officer may have to give a
reasonable cause. As ruled in the case of Illinois v. Gates in 1983, "to establish
probable cause, one must show a probability of criminal activity; a prima facie hearing
is not required." (Illinois v. Gates) The accused has the right to fight the grounds when
the warrant was attained by means of a trial. 
In most situations there are some exceptions. An officer is not allowed to get a search
warrant if evidence to a crime is in plain view. (Encarta Online) In the case Horton v.
California 1990, police entered a house with a warrant that was given to search the house
for stolen jewelry. While searching the house they found illegal weapons in plain view.
The officers seized weapons as well as the stolen jewelry. In 1990 the court ruled in the
case, Greenwood v. California, the court approved a search of garbage that was left on
the curb without a warrant. One other situation that an officer can enter a home and
seize evidence is if there is and emergency and it is vital for he or she to enter.
(History Channel Online) In the case Michigan v. Tyler, 1978, there was evidence that two
furniture 
dealers of committed a crime when the store was on fire. 
While searching an automobile there is a different standard. For example, in the case
Chimel v. California, the automobile was a "movable scene of crime." Evidence could be
gone by the time a warrant could be issued. In California v. Acevedo, 1991, the court set
down a rule that covers all automobile searches. It was ruled that, "when ever police
lawfully stops a car, they do not need a warrant to search anything in that vehicle that
they do not have a reason to believe holds evidence of a crime." (Grolier Encyclopedia) 
As a result of Weeks v. United States, 1914, the court embraced the exclusionary rule.
The exclusionary rule says that evidence gained as a result of an illegal act by police
cannot be used against the person from who is seized. In the case Mapp v. Ohio 1961,
police entered a Mapp's home thinking that will find evidence of illegal gambling. While
searching the house they found no evidence of gambling, but did find dirty magazines.
Mapp was arrested and charged with having obscene materials. After being sentenced to
jail the Supreme Court decided that the evidence was illegally obtained, because of the
exclusionary rule. Within recent years the court has cut down on the exclusionary rule.
(History Channel Online) Even though the rule says that illegally obtained evidence
cannot be used in a trial, it can be used in a federal grand jury preceding. The court
has given officers the benefit of the doubt to make "honest mistakes." This ruling came
as a result of the case Maryland v. Garrison 1987. In this case, police had a warrant to
search an apartment for drugs. When the 
officers went to the apartment complex to make a search they entered the wrong apartment
but still found drugs. 
In Olmstead v. United States, 1928 the court saw its first case dealing with electronic
bugging. The court ruled that police did not need a warrant to tape his phone calls
because it did not invade him physically. In 1967 the court ruled differently in the case
Katz v. United States. In this case Katz placed a phone call from a public phone booth to
send and receive betting information. To receive evidence of the crime, federal agents
placed a bug outside of the booth. After being arrested the court ruled that even though
it was in a public place, he was making a private call. It was an illegal search. Now
because of this case police now have to have a search warrant before using wiretapping.
This applies to any and all people. (Katz v. U.S.) 
Along with the first eight amendments, the 4th Amendment deals with personal freedom.
(Encarta Online) The 4th Amendment protects citizens from being accused of a crime
without probable cause. Citizens of the United States of America deserves and maintains
the right to privacy and security in their own homes.