The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution - Research Paper Example

The Fourth Amendment of the United s Constitution Introduction The fourth amendment of the United s Constitution s that “[t]he 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”. This provision in the constitution seeks to ensure personal security from unlawful searches and seizures. It guarantees that no searches and seizures shall issue except upon probable cause as properly ascertained after oath and affirmation. The carrying out of warrants should also be done on specific persons and things subject of seizures or arrests. These warrants cannot be carried out like ‘fishing’ expeditions in the hope of obtaining incriminating evidence to pursue a case. This paper shall discuss the fourth amendment of the United States constitution. It shall cover specific cases that support and protect the 4th Amendment. Specific cases shall include the Mapp v. Ohio case; the provisions of due process, warrants and landmark cases that cover them, and any other pertinent cases that are related to the 4th Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio In the Mapp v. Ohio case, Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. Police authorities received an anonymous tip that there was an individual wanted for a recent bombing hiding in the Mapp house. The police authorities knocked on her house and demanded entry. Mapp refused entry and demanded that authorities produce a search warrant. The police waved a piece of paper which was allegedly a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper, but the paper was later forcibly retrieved from her. The police gained access to her home by forcibly opening one of the doors in the house. She was handcuffed for her alleged belligerence. They also dragged Mapp upstairs to her bedroom and to her daughter’s room. They also searched the kitchen, the dinette, the living room, and the basement. In the course of their search, they discovered a trunk containing pornographic materials. They later arrested her for violating Ohio’s criminal law on the possession of obscene materials. During the trial, the police authorities were unwilling or unable to produce the warrant that they presented to Mapp during their search. Nevertheless, the trial court found Mapp guilty sentencing her to 1 to 7 years in jail (Mapp v. Ohio, as quoted by Landmark Cases “Background Summary and Questions”). On appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, her attorney argued that the items seized were a product of an unlawful search, therefore should be inadmissible in evidence. The Supreme Court of Ohio admitted that the methods in obtaining evidence were offensive to justice; however, the Court ruled the evidence as admissible. The trial court ruling was upheld. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the conviction was overturned. The Supreme Court emphasized that evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment is considered inadmissible in evidence. Justice Tom Clark expressed that [w]ere it otherwise…the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures would be [meaningless]” (Mapp v Ohio, as quoted by Information Please “United States Supreme Court Cases”). As further expressed by Justice Clark, he emphasizes the exclusionary rule which compels respect for the constitution and removes the instinct and the motivation to violate its mandates. This case reiterated the provisions of the 4th Amendment and emphasized that law enforcement authorities should take legal courses of actions in their establishment of evidence against suspects. The Mapp v. Ohio case was a landmark case in many ways. It set the highest standard in safeguarding the protection of the provisions of the 4th Amendment. It also prompted the retraining of police authorities in the implementation of legal mandates such as those involving the bill of rights. A police commissioner reiterated the importance of this case in law enforcement when he said that it prompted the modification, amendment, and creation of new policies and the conduct of retraining sessions from the very top administrators down to each of the thousands of foot patrolmen (Murphy, pp. 940-941, as quoted by Loh, p. 301). Subsequent cases modified the implementation of the 4th Amendment, but this case still established the basic foundations on the implementation of searches and seizures in law enforcement. The spirit of the law is intact – individuals must be secure in their persons and property unless probable cause is established to justify the issuance of a warrant. Due Process The due process that surrounds the implementation of the 4th Amendment basically stems from the provisions of the amendment itself. The due process of law is required before law enforcement authorities can conduct searches and seizures. The 14th Amendment also specifically provides for a person’s right to due process of law, and the right to due process includes the First Amendment Free Speech, the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful seizures and searches, and the Eight Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment (Ross & Voss, p. 15). Police officers have to follow the substantive and procedural process in executing searches and seizures. Probable cause has to be established first through proper and legal investigation techniques. This will help satisfy substantive due process. After proper investigation yields probable cause, procedural due process would now ensue. This will involve swearing under oath before judicial authorities about the truth and veracity of claims. Such claims shall be investigated by judicial authorities who will then pass judgment on evidence presented. Problems or questions in the due process can be raised by those whose rights are violated. “Problems arise for the police when they fail to observe constitutional guarantees, more often referred to as due process” (Dantzker, p. 134). In the criminal justice system, the due process of law is considered as safeguards or vanguards for the constitutional rights. Due process helps ensure that law enforcement authorities are abiding by the provisions of the 4th Amendment. Ultimately, it will help ensure that a person will be investigated, arrested, tried, and convicted according to the basic foundations of law (Dantzker, p. 135). Warrants and Landmark Cases New Jersey v. TLO In the New Jersey v. TLO case, a teacher at the Piscataway High School found two of its female students smoking in the restroom. Smoking was prohibited in the restrooms and was only allowed in designated smoking areas. The teacher then escorted the students to the principal’s office where they met with assistant vice principal Choplick. One of the students admitted that she had been smoking, but the other student, TLO denied the allegation and claimed that she did not smoke at all. Choplick then demanded that TLO turn over her purse. When Choplick opened the purse, he found cigarettes and a package of cigarette-rolling papers which he believed as a clear indication that TLO was also smoking marijuana. He conducted a more thorough search of TLO’s purse and he successfully unearthed a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a large amount to one-dollar bills, a list of students who owed TLO money, and letters indicating that TLO was dealing marijuana (Landmark Cases “Background Summary and Questions”). Choplick called TLO’s mother and the police. At the police station, TLO admitted that she had been dealing marijuana in school. Based on her confession and on evidence gathered from her purse, she was charged with delinquency. During the trial, TLO sought to have the evidence from her purse suppressed citing the Fourth Amendment. The juvenile court rejected her arguments declaring that school authorities may search students if they find “reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or in the process of being committed, or reasonable cause to believe that the search is necessary to maintain school discipline or enforce school policies” (New Jersey v. TLO, as quoted by Landmark Cases “Background Summary and Questions”). She was sentenced to a year of probation. On appeal, the appellate court decided that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. TLO further appealed with the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the decision of the appellate court ruling that an unreasonable search was carried out and therefore the evidence from such unreasonable search should be suppressed (as quoted by Landmark Cases “Background and Summary). The State of New Jersey appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court overturned the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that although students have a reasonable expectation of privacy while they are in school, they are nevertheless not above school rules. “Striking the balance between schoolchildrens legitimate expectations of privacy and the schools equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject” (New Jersey v. TLO, as quoted by Find Law “Cases & Codes”). Therefore, school officials need not avail of a warrant before searching the student who is within their authority. The legality of the search needs only to rely on the reasonableness of the inception of the search which led to the discovery of the contraband. The discovery of the schoolchildren violating school rules on smoking led to the search of TLO’s purse. The subsequent discovery of the cigarette papers led to a more thorough search of the student’s purse; and this search led to the discovery of marijuana. The reasonable cause which led to the search is sufficient basis for the validity of the search and the subsequent charges. Richards v. Wisconsin In the case of Richards v. Wisconsin, police officers in Wisconsin were able to obtain a search warrant for Richards’ hotel room for drugs and related paraphernalia. A ‘no knock’ provision was sought by officers, but was deleted by the judge issuing the warrant. Armed with the warrant, police officers now proceeded to Richards’ hotel room. One of the police officers knocked on the door dressed as hotel staff, and identified himself as hotel maintenance. When Richards partly opened the door, he saw one of the police officers standing behind the ‘hotel staff’. Richards immediately slammed the door. The police officers then proceeded to knock the door down and successfully gained entry into Richards’ hotel room. They then caught Richards as he was trying to escape through the hotel room window. They found cocaine and cash hidden behind one of the bathroom tiles. Richards sought to have the evidence gathered in his hotel room suppressed insisting that the police officers should have knocked and announced themselves first before entering his room. The trial court ruled against him, emphasizing that the disposable nature of the contraband was sufficient reason for the police officers to enter the room without knocking. On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Richards further appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court again affirmed the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court ruled that the officers’ ‘no knock’ entry into Richards’ hotel room did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The police officers gave sufficient notice to Richards who then slammed the door on them and tried to escape. Richards’ refusal to let the police officers enter was suspicious behavior and sufficiently supported the subsequent actions of the police officers. The ‘no knock’ nature of the warrant was already rendered superfluous when the officers were executing the warrant. Nevertheless, it does not negate the “reasonableness of the officers’ decision, which must be evaluated as of the time they entered the hotel room” (as quoted by Cornell University “Supreme Court”). California v. Greenwood In the California v. Greenwood case, police officers acted on a tip that Greenwood was dealing narcotics. They searched his trash bags which were left at the curb; and their search yielded paraphernalia for drug use. They then applied for a search warrant of Greenwood’s home. Based on evidence from the trash bags and on items they seized while executing the search warrant, Greenwood was convicted of drug-related charges. Greenwood appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that the search on his garbage was warrantless and illegal. The Supreme Court upheld the search claiming that “bags of trash left on the side of the street were open to inspection by animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public” (Think Quest “Library”). The search was valid, hence the evidence was admissible. Chimel v. California In the Chimel v. California case, police authorities knew that Chimel was burglarizing a specific area for quite some time. They sought and were able to get a warrant to secure his arrest. They served his warrant at his apartment and in the process of executing the arrest, they searched his apartment and found evidence which further proved his commission of the burglaries. The search was done without a warrant. The police officers contended that they were following the mandates of the law which required them to search within the vicinity of an arrestee in order to prevent escape, to prevent destruction of evidence, and to prevent the acquisition of a weapon. (Think Quest “Library”). The Supreme Court held that the search conducted on almost every room of Chimel’s house was not valid because it violated the 4th and 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the warrantless search may only properly extend on his person, “whatever he/she has in his pockets and etc. as well as anything that may be in reach such as a weapon in a nearby drawer” (4Law School “Criminal”). The court ruled that in this case, there was no legitimate reason for the police officers to routinely search all the rooms of the house. Search and Seizure from Private Dwellings Warrantless searches and seizures in private dwellings are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Searches and seizures cannot be conducted on private dwellings without a valid warrant. And the search and seizure must only include particular items and places identified in the warrant. No ‘fishing’ expedition or general searches and seizures may be conducted on private dwellings in the hope of turning up evidence that may be used to incriminate a person. It is, however, important for home owners to realize that if the police can view contraband in one’s property even without entering it, they can legally seize such items as evidence. Items seized can then be used to avail of search warrants that will authorize them to enter the property and conduct more thorough searches. Police officers can also take aerial photographs of one’s property or get close enough to hear conversations in one’s private property without violating the law. They are not however allowed, without a valid warrant, to use sophisticated equipment to explore one’s private property or to listen in on conversations in the property. Such methods are now considered ‘searches’ on the property which necessitate the issuance of valid warrants (Morrison, p. 4). In the interest of apprehending criminals during hot pursuit, private dwellings may be searched even without search warrants (Morrison, p. 6). The nature of the situation legally allows for the violation of a person’s dwelling in order to successfully bring about the apprehension and the arrest of criminals. Having to avail of search warrants before searching for criminals in private dwellings may cause the escape of criminals and the endangerment of the lives of civilians caught in the midst of the hot pursuit. It is also important to note that searches in apartments and private dwellings may be conducted if the person in charge of the premises gives permission. In an apartment or a room shared by several individuals, a roommate can legally allow the search of common areas shared by those staying in the room. These areas may include the kitchen, the living room, or the bath room. However, the roommate cannot give permission to search another person’s room or personal property. The consent has to be given by the person staying in the room (Morrison, p. 6). Other cases related to the 4th Amendment There are other cases related to the 4th Amendment. One of the earliest landmark cases was the 1886 Boyd v. United States case. Boyd was a supplier of plate glass and his company had a contract with the government. In the contract, Boyd was to supply the government with plated glass at a discounted price and the government was asked not to charge the special tax on Boyd. The government later suspected that Boyd was cheating on the contract by importing more plated glass. The government went to court and asked a revocation of the contract. During trial, the judge ordered Boyd to produce all their invoices for the imported glass. Boyd gave in and on the strength of the invoices produced, he was convicted. On appeal, they invoked violation of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, stating that “clearly the right to be secure in one’s person or dwelling means that a person should not be forced to give up evidence that is incriminating” (Rocha & Ramen, p. 52). In the 1914 Weeks v. United States Case, the Exclusionary Rule came about. Fremont Weeks was arrested, tried, and subsequently convicted. The arrest, search, and seizure were carried out without a warrant. During this case, the Supreme Court effectively set out that “evidence that had been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used in trial” (Rocha & Ramen, p. 53). Exceptions to this exclusionary rule were gradually set throughout the years by virtue of various decisions by the Supreme Court. The good faith exception rule was set in the United States v. Leon case where the evidence gathered from a search was not excluded because the law enforcement officer believed, in good faith, that he was carrying out a valid search warrant. In fact, the warrant had no probable cause. This good faith rule was set forth in order to protect honest and good faith errors of law enforcement officers that can sometimes cause guilty offenders to be set free (Finkelman, p. 1685). The 1921 Gouled v United States Case set the standards for mere evidence rule. In essence, this rule specified that evidence which may be used against a person can only include materials which are either the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime. The court ruled that “letters that merely indicated a person had committed a crime could not be used as evidence against a person” (Rocha & Ramen, p. 59). Various other cases throughout the history of the United States have been adjudicated by the courts in order to protect the 4th Amendment. They help ensure that persons are secure in their homes and in their persons against unlawful practices and ‘shortcuts’ taken by law enforcement authorities. Works Cited Amendment 4: Search and Seizure. 2009. The United States Constitution.net. 07 July 2009 California v. Greenwood (486 US 35) Library. 1988. Think Quest. 07 July 2009 Chimel v. California (395 US 752). Library. 1969. Think Quest. 07 July 2009 Chimel v. California (395 U.S. 752). Criminal. 1969. 4Law School. 07 July 2009 Dantzer, C. Understanding Todays Police. 2005. New York: Criminal Justice Press Finkelman, P. Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. 2006. New York: Routledge Leming, E. Teaching about the Fourth Amendments Protection against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. May 1993. ERIC Digests. 07 July 2009 Loh, W. Social research in the judicial process. 1984. California: Russell Sage Foundation Mapp v. Ohio (367 US 463). Background Summary and Questions. 1961. Landmark Cases. 07 July 2009 Mapp v. Ohio (367 US 463). Supreme Court Cases. 2005. Information Please. 07 July 2009 Morrison, D. Search and Seizure Law. Articles. 2004. Don Morrison Law. 07 July 2009 New Jersey v. TLO (469 US 325) Background Summary and Questions. 1985. Landmark Cases Supreme Court. 07 July 2009 New Jersey v. TLO (469 US 325) United States Supreme Court. 1985. Findlaw. 07 July 2009 Richards v. Wisconsin (520 US 385). Supreme Court Cases. 1997. Cornell University. 07 July 2009 Rocha, T. & Ramen, F. The Right to Freedom from Searches. 2001. New York: Rosen Publishing Group Ross, M. & Voss, E. Sword and Shield. 2006. Chicago, Illinois: American Bar Association Read More