Protections and issues surronding the 4th amendement - Essay Example

These questions will be answered and explained in detail. 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.” (Anonymous 1) Since the ratification of the Fourth Amendment we have had many court rulings directly applying to the use of the Fourth Amendment and its limits and allowances.

The amendment itself states emphatically that people must be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also clearly states that their security is in their homes, persons and especially their papers and effects. The use of the word effects is based on 18th century English the definition of which at the time meant specifically, movable property. A primary modern legal precedent can be found in Mapp versus Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). This case specifically decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal prosecution in state or federal courts. (Mapp v. Ohio 1) An interesting aspect of this case came in the dissenting opinion from Justice Harlan who believed that the wrong questions had been asked and that proper information had not been given.

The exclusionary rule had also been brought up with this decision as before this decision there had never been a widely applied enforcement of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is the legal approach that holds that evidence wrongly acquired should be dismissed and is a support for the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule does not however, apply in civil cases, grand jury proceedings or a parole revocation hearing. Some believe that the exclusionary rule causes more negative than positive.

Socially this may be the case in that as a result of the exclusionary rule and by default the Fourth Amendment guilty individuals may go free, there is the greater need for justice to be fair and the exclusionary rule ensures that this can happen. The exclusionary rule is the only agreed upon solution for the Supreme Court to assure the effectiveness of the Fourth Amendment. Another case that set legal precedent was Katz versus United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). This case set the precedent for technology and privacy, specifically; one has an expected privacy when making a call from a telephone booth.

The decision made it clear that a person could make a private call in a public area. The dissenting opinion from Justice Black said that the Fourth Amendment was meant to protect items from physical search and seizure. (Katz v. United States 1) There have been new approaches to this issue due to the use of the internet and cellular phones which do not necessarily call for a phone booth; however, it has been upheld as case law. Among the modern issues presented by adherence to the protections of the Fourth Amendment come as a result of recent terrorist activity within the United States.

The Patriot Act or public law 107-56 has been the center of much controversy with its wide reaching allowances especially regarding the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act allows federal and state law enforcement agents to commit searches if a suspect is understood to be a threat to national security. Specifically Title II