Amendment+4+(3)


 * //The Fourth Amendment Notes//**


 * //1.Full understanding://**
 * //The//** **//Fourth Amendment//** **//to the United States Constitution//** **//is the part of the//** Bill of Rights **//which guards against unreasonable//** **searches and seizures.****//. It was ratified as a response to the abuse of the// Writ of Assistance****//, which is a type of general//** **search warrant****//, in the// American Revolution****//. The amendment specifically requires search and//** **arresting warrants** **//be//** **//supported by probable cause//****//. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the// issuing court****//, usually by a// law enforcement officer****//.//**


 * //2.Supreme Court Cases//**
 * //A. Mapp v. Ohio(1960)://** **http://www.oyez.org/cases**/
 * //Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.//**
 * //Conclusion://**
 * //The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.//**

**//3. Some restraints exist on the practice of the 4th amendment in order to keep the government or law enforcement from unconstitutionally convicting a person of a crime with evidence they illegally seize. An example of this would be the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule allows courts to exclude incriminating evidence upon proof it was procured in contravention of a constitutional provision. if a judge rules that the evidence goes under the exclusionary rule, then the law also dismisses any evidence found from the excluded evidence by "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine excludes any evidence found from an illegal search/seizure. Meaning for example if law enforcement searches a persons home suspected of murder without a warrant and they find a gun, the gun cannot be presented as evidence during the trial (if one was to occur).//**
 * //B. Katz v. United States (1967)://** **//http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_35///**
 * //A//** **The United States Supreme Court** **//decision that extended the// Fourth Amendment** **//protection from unreasonable searches and seizures//** **//to protect individuals in a//** **telephone booth** **//from//** **wire taps** **//by authorities without//** **//a//** **warrant****//.//**
 * //Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challanged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.//**
 * //Conclusion://** **//Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection.//**


 * //4. It allows each person to have the freedom of their personal property unless found guilty of substance in plain view and/or probable cause .//**

**//5.What debates exist over the current interpretation of this amendment?//** 
 * //The debate that exists over the fourth amendments are if wiretapping by the police without a warrant and whether or not it violates people fourth amendment rights. Warrants were originated in the criminal justice paradigm(a view on a specific subject) to provide a useful standard for surveillance designed to prove guilt, not to learn the identity of people who may be planning to do something dangerous. The article “ The Warrantless Debate over Wiretapping” generally states that it’s ok for some things to be wire tapped and for specific reasons. For example, if there is a terrorism suspect in Pakistan that is having a conversation wit an American via the internet or chat room they should be able to tap the wires preferably for the safe of Americans. Also, because there is a probable cause and warrant is not needed for them to do it.//** **//“//****Once you grant the legitimacy of surveillance aimed at detection rather than at gathering evidence of guilt, requiring a warrant to conduct it would be like requiring a warrant to ask people questions or to install surveillance cameras on city streets”, says Judge Richard Posner.**


 * 6. We predict that in the next twenty years American citizens rights will be much more restricted. Already courts are making exceptions to the 4th amendment in order to claim justice in certain cases. For example, in "Terry V. Ohio" the supreme court ruled that it was not illegal for the cops to pat down Mr. Terry who was pacing suspiciously in font of a jewelry store. The court ruled the cops had probable cause that Mr. Terry was intending to commit a crime ant the pat down was an exception the 4th amendment. Its only a matter of time before the supreme court rules the government and/or law enforcement can violate the 4th amendment when ever they need to in order to insure the safety of others.**