Policing in the Fourth Amendment - Assignment Example

Lawyers admit that drawing the line between these two types of private real estate has been a major task for the Court. 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 (Hubbart 2005, p. 34). Searching a vehicle without a warrant is permissible if the police have a reasonable cause such as drug trafficking or an offense is being committed.

In cases where it is "impossible" to obtain a warrant, he continued, the officer may act, but only if probable cause exists. The expansive language requiring a warrant whenever "practicable" and only allowing a search or seizure without a warrant if it is "impossible" to get a warrant forced Courts to search high and low for rules that would live up to that language without making law enforcement all but impossible in the modern world. While the police might have had probable cause to seize the car and its occupants, they should have obtained a search warrant before going further and searching the automobile because the Fourth Amendment protects privacy as well as property.

For this reason, the convictions for conspiracy to rob a bank were overturned (Hubbart, 2005). In contrast to automobiles, police should obtain a warrant in order to search a residence. It is assumed that individuals do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in an open field, he argued, even in an open field surrounded by trees, a fence, and a locked gate. While the Fourth Amendment protects property, this is not the kind of property worthy of protection. That means in most cases the government must have a warrant before invading the sanctity of a home.

The house is a private building on private property, not open to the general public and therefore part of the private sphere government may not invade without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment, critics argued, is not tied to the dictates of the ancient English common law (Hubbart, 2005). The amendment was instead intended to serve as the basis for the development of new U.S. law that would be separate and distinct from the ancient English rules. While the majority of justices assumed that most people would consent to have the inspector in their home or business, those people who did not have a right to be protected from arbitrary actions by government officials.

Therefore, they would be allowed to obtain a warrant to search in such an area for violations if they satisfied the judge that they had good reason to make the inspections.