The Fourth Amendment - Research Paper Example

The right against unreasonable searches and seizure is a protected right in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that “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.” The purpose of the bill of rights is to balance the authority and avoid any abuse in discretion against the government as they practice their police power against its citizens. The concept of this right emanates from the most basic right provided by the Due process clause, that is, the right to life, liberty and property. It also protects the right to privacy. It is the same right that is also protected by the Fourth Amendment The right against unreasonable searches and seizures emanates from an old rule of common law as stated by Sir Edward Coke (1604): "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose." This emphasizes that even the king cannot enter any individuals personal property and is only permitted to do further search and inquiry with a lawful cause and following certain conditions. The Fourth Amendment is limited to governmental searches and seizures made by the federal government and also state governments through the Due Process Clause, Justice Felix Frankfurter said in the case “The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society” (Wolf v. Colorado [1941])). But in order to understand what an unreasonable search and seizure is, we must fist understand the concept or definition of “search”. In the landmark case of Katz v. United States (1967), there is a “search” made when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable. The right to privacy is another inviolable right of man that contemplates respect to his existence as an individual and his basic liberty. In his daily life, a man has "reasonable expectation of privacy" that cannot be stepped over through abuse of power by the lawful authority. Any evidence that are taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible as evidence in any criminal prosecution in a court. The Fourth Amendment protects man from unreasonable government interference in his daily life, although several Supreme Court cases have provided certain exceptions to this general rule. One of this exceptions established by the Supreme Court was made in the landmark case of United States v. Leon (1984) is the “good faith rule”. The fact of the case was based on a drug case that was under surveillance by the police authority in Burbank, California. Based on the information given by the officer taking the said surveillance, a certain Officer Rombach filed for an application of a search warrant for three residences upon the review and approval of the District Attorney. A state court judge after reviewing the request, issued a search warrant. Hence, a search ensued and the suspects were indicted for federal drug offenses. Upon trial, respondent suspects moved that the evidence taken in the search be inadmissible as evidence stating that the affidavit lacked sufficient proof of probable cause. Officer Rombach replied in his defense that his reliance on the search warrant was based on good faith, believing that the officer that gave the information was based on his personal knowledge that would in effect lead to a proper probable cause. The Courts accepted the defense and thereafter established good faith reliance on a defective search warrant by the court, as an exception to the exclusionary rule in violating the Fourth Amendment. As Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall dissented in the case, I also agree that the good faith exception is a dangerous decision that can violate the civil liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment. As it was stated in United States v. Calandra, (1974), the fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment " is to prevent unreasonable governmental intrusions into the privacy of one's person, house, papers, or effects. The wrong condemned is the unjustified governmental invasion of these areas of an individual's life. That wrong . . . is fully accomplished by the original search without probable cause." The lack of probable cause in the case of Leon is not a mere defect but is the lack of the essence itself of a valid search. The majority stated that it is not the judge that violates this constitutional right by admitting tainted evidence, as the judge merely relies on the affidavit or statement of probable cause given by a police officer based on his independent judgment of the facts presented before him. It is because of this facts that good faith was established, but what the Court did not understand is that the Fourth Amendment should not be limited to the initial process of seizing an evidence, that is in the police level. A connection must also be established from the initial process until it reaches the judge. By admitting the evidence by admitting the unlawfully seized evidence, “the judiciary becomes a part of what is in fact a single governmental action prohibited by the terms of the Amendment” (United States v. Calandra). Hence, the Fourth Amendment does not merely condemn the initial invasion of privacy done usually in the police level, in securing the evidence, but it must also apply to subsequent use of such evidence obtained. The purpose for lawful seizures made by police officers is to give aid and proof in court in their prosecution. The Court hence must be part of the process, of the purpose of protection and cannot be absolved of responsibility for the means by which evidence is obtained. The courts would then believe that because of this exception, that they are absolved from judicial review when issuing defectively based warrants. If their admission to the warrant is correct, then it will be admissible as evidence, although there is prior defect from the police part. This gives much liberty to the judges that regardless of the lack of proper review of the request for warrant, their decisions are still considered valid. Furthermore, the good-faith exception would be lead to indirectly violate the law by providing minimum information in their warrant applications, passing the discretion to the judge in approving the same. They may give affidavits requesting for warrants that are not “entirely unreasonable” in order that their conduct pursuant to such application be protected from further judicial review. The lack of proper review undermines the integrity in the process of issuance of warrant, relying basically on the discretion of the judge in issuing it, with his good faith reliance being enough defense to pursue the use of evidence based on a defective warrant. Their good faith reliance of what is a so called administrative job of lawful enforcers should not be used as an excuse for obtaining evidence that lacks the most fundamental essence of a valid search, probable cause. Regardless of the independence and the impartiality of the magistrate, mistakes are indeed inevitable but do not necessarily have to be acceptable if it is in violation of a constitutional right. Source Wolf v. Colorado 338 U.S. 25 (1949) Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S., at 348 (1974) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), Read More