An Analysis of the Fourth Amendment - Research Paper Example

An Analysis of The Fourth Amendment The fourth amendment was a significant development of the American constitution, which spells out the limits of the executive in the manner in which it may carry out searches, seizures, or arrests on the citizenry. In principle, the fourth amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and works within the changed requirements on the conduct of arresting officers with regard to the privacies of the persons being apprehended or searched (McInnis 41). The central focus of the fourth amendment was addressed on specific details of the general warrant, which gave the authorities the sweeping powers to search suspected citizens with no limits on the nature of the items they could focus their searches on or their general conduct during the searches. The conduct and practice of the authorities was consistent with the view that the authorities had unlimited powers over all their subjects and could search their private residences at their own whims. Legal scholars and historians connect the origin of the fourth amendment to the old English law, which was equally challenged on the grounds of the excessive powers wielded by the King in searching or arresting persons suspected of certain violations. The fourth amendment was viewed as a culmination of critics of the search system who insisted that the authorities and the executive should be guided by very specific limits when conducting searches on private citizens (Galiano 26). On this matter, some of the issues that attend to the subject of the searches include the motives under which the authorities may act when executing their searches and the capacity of the limitations that should guide the entire search processes. The amendment was considered as a restoration of the rights to privacy of citizens and the limits for action on the part of state officers and other parties acting for and on behalf of the executive. General warrants had allowed the executive to selectively apply the law in ways that suited the limited or political interests of the executive. As such, it was necessary for the state to revamp the constitution in ways that laid structural obstacles in the possibility of misusing the law to suit the private interests of the political class. Increasing concerns that the general warrants had permitted the executive to suppress the opposition and muzzle the media led to the protests and criticisms that eventually culminated in the abolition of the general warrants. The general understanding of the fourth amendment is the validity and force of a warrant can only be obtained through the sanctioning of the judiciary. Effectively, the amendment altered the powers of the executives by determining the specific details upon, which a warrant may be sought and the manner in which it may be applied in order to meet the thresholds of legality (Maclin 58). The curtailing of the powers of the executive through the abolition of the general warrant is one of the important features of the fourth amendment. On this score, it might be argued that the determination of the rights of the citizenry as brought about within the warrant entailed the structural revision of the systems that had allowed and condoned the adoption and application of warrants in unspecified ways. The limitations of the traditional systems gave room to the abuse of office since the executive could engage in suppressive or oppressive activities in ways that promoted the denial of rights to the citizenry. The Fourth Amendment stipulates the conditions under which warrants may be permissible (Taslitz 39). One of the fundamental features of the Fourth Amendment is that it foregrounds the condition of reasonability in the execution of a legal search or arrest. The Amendment explicitly outlaws any forms of unreasonable searches, which in effect affirms that value of human freedom and the expression of individual privacy as key factors that require the protection and safeguarding by the government (Schulhofer 66). On this matter, it becomes appropriate to consider the Fourth Amendment in terms of the various connecting factors between the duties of the state versus the rights of the citizens. Excessive application of state duty on some matters poses a significant threat to the flourishing of individual privacy, which in effect deprives people of their inalienable rights. The substance of the Fourth Amendment has often been interpreted in terms of the desire by the legislators and the advocates for individual liberties to moderate the power of the authorities with some element of oversight. There was the feeling that the executive could lapse into unlawful practices if its actions are not regulated and determined through express judicial processes. Writs of assistance as interpreted within the American legal framework were considered as structural representatives of the retrogressive colonial policies of the British. A compelling need to liberate America from the British influence and practices informed, in part, the desire to challenge the system as it represented itself within the British culture. The general warrants as constituted before the enactment of the Fourth Amendment was largely created for the purposes of tax collections. At the time of their creation, the designers were largely controlled by the need to create specific legislations that would allow their increased intrusions into the private lives of individuals as determined within the British system. It might be argued that some of the issues that connected with the British system were consistent with the general policies of the colonial establishment. Seizure power was regarded as utterly inconsistent with the coming of age of the democratic processes that controlled the lives of Americans (Schulhofer 62). The enactment of a legislation in Massachusetts in 1756, which abolished the use of such warrants as general warrants marked the first important step towards the landmark amendment that has gained force and acceptance within the American legal system. This enactment rendered the Excise Act of 1754 inactive (Gonzales 18). As such, the tax collectors were denied the right to forcefully seize items and properties belonging to colonists for particular administrative reasons. The Massachusetts legislation paved the way for increased legislations into various matters that connected with the clamor for increased freedoms and liberties. Public outcry on the character of the tax collectors had elicited various reactions from the political establishment forcing it to cede substantial ground on the matter of privacies and property ownership. The ownership of certain properties had been regarded as inappropriate and had therefore to be challenged through forceful seizure backed by colonial legislations, which legitimized the level of control that the government exercised on the lives of the public. Another form of legislation referred to as Virginia Declaration of Rights immediately followed up the Massachusetts development (Gonzales 97). This declaration affirmed the illegality of certain actions that were deemed consistent with systematic intrusion in the private lives of the citizenry. One of the defining characteristics of the Virginia Declaration of Rights is that it laid ground for the explicit outlawing of general warrants on the public. Historians and scholars of American law regard the Massachusetts legislation and the Virginia Declaration of Rights as the two most influential building blocks for the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment Spells out the specific areas, which comprise of the individual, house, papers, and possessions, and affirms that any searches of these private properties must include certain conditions. The main conditions for a reasonable search include the fact that all warrants must involve an oath and the aspect of affirmation. Secondly, the oath spells out that certain specific aspects of the search must necessarily include special designation of the search or the warrant Gonzales 21). On this matter, it follows that certain aspects of the search have to be conducted in the strict terms as provided within the articled of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment affirms that no warrants can be issued without the following of the specific formalities as spelt out in the constitution. Analysts contend that this Amendment was liberating in the manner in which it redefined the aspect of individual privacy and opened up additional constitutional safeguards against the excesses of the state. Contradictory opinions have often attended to the particulars of the Fourth Amendment. Some of the issues that have become problematic in the course of interpreting the Fourth Amendment include the definitions of search and the threshold of determining the reasonable levels of a search. According to various schools of thought, the matter of reasonable levels should involve the specific condition and the assessment of the law enforcers about the nature of the incident or the person on whom the search is subjected (Schulhofer 50). Issues related to searches have often been determined in terms of the manner in which they connect to the private concerns of the individuals. For instance, privacy cannot be measured under one universal meaning. Matters of privacy may link to cultural feelings and other meanings as they reflect within the mind view of the individual. Other matters have come up to define the manner in which the interpretations of the Fourth Amendments serve the ends of justice. Certain exceptions are enclosed in the Fourth Amendment in order to cater for some situations and issues that carry significant public interest. The application of these exceptions requires an assessment of the levels of public interest versus the need to uphold the privacy of the individual targeted for the search. For instance, such exceptions have been brought to bear on the searches that involve motorists and border checks (Lee 88). It may be necessary for the police to act in ways that promote public interests in a manner that could be interpreted to mean the subversion of certain principles of the Fourth Amendment. Various determinants of the merits of applying the Fourth Amendment have often been regarded in terms of their impact on national security matters. For instance, it may be necessary for the law enforcers to escape the formal legal processes in order to prevent an imminent terrorist attack. A strict adherence to the terms of the Fourth Amendment, according to some security experts often compromise matters of homeland security. A lapse in the security can occur in the event of formalizing the processes of search in accordance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. For instance, the September 11 terrorist attack was blamed partly on the difficulties that security agents face in the pursuit of suspects. Intelligence leakages and other issues that endanger homeland security such as the escape of suspects have been blamed on the internal deficiencies within the amendment. Recent historical happenings have tended to redefine the primacy of individual primacy as perceived against certain national interests. Through presidential authority, the governments of former President George W. Bush and current president Barrack Obama have engaged in practices that seem to challenge the constitutional foundations of the individual privacies of individuals. The enactment of some laws allowing for the search or spying on individuals continues to raise concerns over its relationship with certain aspects of the Fourth Amendment. These amendments are considered as direct threats to the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. An understanding of the presidential initiatives must involve an assessment into the various issues that relate with the safeguarding of the security of nation against the possibility of another homeland terrorist attack. One of the legislations that followed the terrorist attack was the USA Patriotic Act and Domestic Spying (Rowen Web). This patriotic attack provided the security agents with powers to conduct searches without warrants, eavesdrop on suspects, and make arrests and deportations of such persons. Although the underlying motive aligns with the need to safeguard public safety, the new laws would pose significant challenges to the safeguarding of individual privacies in ways that would reverse the gains found within the Fourth Amendment (Rowen Web). The new law, for instance, is extra-judicial in the sense that it side steps the judicial processes in order to effectively serve its ends. The actualization of individual privacy would no longer be guaranteed under the new laws because the exclusion of warrants in the search processes would provide the security officials with excessive authority to carry out searches and make arrests without limits or any oversights. Activists argue that the USA Patriotic Act entails a major drawback on the constitutional provisions on human freedoms and liberties as perceived within the framework of the Bill of Rights (Rowen Web). Conflicting positions on the primacy of the individual rights constitutes the controversies surrounding the sustainability of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted within the aspect of upholding individual freedoms for Americans. Essentially, much of the substance of the Fourth Amendment is built on the element of privacy. The need for individuals to feel safe in their own homes and gain a feel of safety over their possessions informs much of the arguments of the amendments. The creation of the Fourth Amendment did not envision the challenges in counterterrorism. In this regard, it becomes necessary to consider the fact that some of the issues that connect within matters of homeland security require the operation outside the frameworks of the constitution for attaining maximum efficiency. An acknowledgment of the specific challenges in the matter of counterterrorism was the key inducement in the extra-judicial leanings that features significantly in recent developments (Gonzales 30). Other similar developments include wire-tapping and other forms of spying on private information of individuals. On this matter, it becomes important to consider the fact that some of the issues that require an assessment on the kind of linkages that exist between the various determinants of security and individual preferences. The very essence of wire-tapping constitutes a flagrant intrusion into people’s private lives. This activity violates the morals of the constitution that guarantees each citizen some specific advantages with regard to freedom and privacy. It further weakens the confidence of the public in institutions. Despite the historical developments that have posed challenges to the application of the Fourth Amendment, its inclusion in the Bill of Rights continues to have significant effects on the lives of America citizens in all spheres of life. The Fourth Amendment enhanced the levels of public trust and a sense of confidence in the law enforcers. This is because it had the impact of reducing the cases of police harassments and targeted searches on the part of the executive. The Fourth Amendment expanded the sense of freedom and the democratic space for all Americans. The amendment emboldened the spirit of liberty, which is at the core of the spirit of liberty as expressed within the Declaration of Independence. The amendment had the important effect of shielding Americans from the excesses of the executive. It provides checks and limits that promoted the ability of the Americans to secure peaceful lives and the pursuit of wealth in the security of the various stipulations that affirm the right of individuals to their private properties and residences. In sum, it enhanced the quality of governance by providing structures to safeguard individuals from the excesses of the executive. On the social aspect, the Fourth Amendment increased the levels of association and privacy in ways that attuned to the private interests of Americans. Works Cited Galiano, Dean. The Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Search and Seizure Amendments to the United States Constitution: the Bill of Rights Series. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2011 Gonzales, Doreen. A Look at the Fourth Amendment: Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. Berkeley Heights, NJ: MyReportLinks.com Books, 2008. Lee, Cynthia. The Fourth Amendment: Searches and Seizures: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 2011. Maclin, Tracey. The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment's Exclusionary Rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012 McInnis, Thomas N. The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010. Rowen, Beth. Post-9/11 Changes in the U.S. Government. Pearson Education. Web 4 April 2013. Schulhofer, Stephen J. More Essential Than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Taslitz, Andrew E. Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A History of Search and Seizure, 1789-1868. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Read More