The 4th Amendment Court Findings - Research Paper Example

Seizure and search, including arrest, should be restricted to the extent of specified information given to the issuing court, normally by a law enforcement agent. Law enforcement agencies should also swear by it. In addition, the Fourth Amendment applies to the state through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the courts and lawmakers have established legal precautions to make sure that law enforcement agents impede people’s Fourth Amendment liberties solely under restricted situations, and through specified techniques (Stair, 2003).

In the case involving Davis and the United States, the defendant was found guilty of illegally holding a firearm but argued that the search which found the firearm was not constitutional under new United States Supreme Court precedent and that elimination of the firearm evidence was necessary. About the then-binding precedent, the firearm was found in the jacket of the defendant in a vehicle search after the defendant was taken out of the vehicle and detained. This case had a positive impact on law enforcement investigations. This is because the court ruled the law enforcers' actions were in good faith and objectively reasonable. In addition, the exclusionary rule did not necessitate deterrence of such behavior. Nonetheless, this decision did not protect the defendant’s civil liberty. The law enforcement officers did not have warrants and the defendant’s vehicle was located in a prohibited area where the defendant could not access it (Stair, 2003).

The case involving Lundstrom and Romeo hurt law enforcement investigations. This was after appellant arrestees sought a review of a decision that gave summary judgment for appellee law enforcers based on the practiced immunity in the lawsuit of the arrestee asserting they were illegally seized and one of their homes illegally searched when a confrontation involving a child welfare check ensued. This was due to the officers’ answer to a 911 call. This case illustrates that despite an issue and a 911 call being made, law enforcement agents will be presumed to violate the Fourth Amendment rights because they either do not have a search warrant, probable cause that a person has engaged in a crime, or an arrest warrant. Nonetheless, the court’s decision on officers not being permitted to qualified immunity and should not be given summary judgment protects a person’s civil rights because the Fourth Amendment does not permit a physical seizure of an individual through arrest or police searches of their private places, for example, houses (Stair, 2003).

The decision of the case involving the United States and Richard had a positive effect on law enforcement investigations. The defendant was sentenced to 90 months in prison after being found with an extraditable felony warrant and a loaded handgun in his luggage. This case is relevant to law enforcement investigations because searches are warranted if individualized suspicion prompts the search (Stair, 2003). In this case, the defendant refused the sergeant’s appeal to search his luggage after being asked questions regarding his travel intentions. This illustrated suspicion and hence caused the search in which a loaded handgun was found. Nonetheless, the affirmation of the judgment did not protect the person’s civil liberty as he was asked questions regarding his travel plans, and his identification and the officers wanted to search his luggage without a warrant.

Finally, the case involving the United States and Fox had a positive impact on law enforcement investigations. The decision of the court to reverse the motion to suppress evidence indicated that as long as an item is not lawfully obtained, it cannot be utilized as evidence in a criminal court case (Stair, 2003). The wife of the defendant allowed the officer to search their home, but the officers did not have a search warrant. In addition, the defendant’s wife's seizure was illegal because the officers did not possess reasonable suspicion to arrest the wife. The court’s decision to reverse the motion to suppress evidence protected civil liberty. The decision protected a person against unwarranted arrest and guaranteed privacy. A person’s home should not be searched without a warrant.