Legal Searches and the Fourth Amendment
As a response to the intrusive presence of the British forces ofoccupation before the American Revolution, the framers of the United StatesConstitution took care to be sure that any indigenous government would bepermanently enjoined from imposing itself in unwarranted ways on thecitizenry. "Using a Writ of Assistance, British customs officials wereable to enter any home and search the premises for evidence of customsviolations" (Robinson, 2004) in the years before the Revolution. Theprotective amendment to the Constitution written by the colonists has beena linchpin of the personal freedom Americans have enjoyed ever since. Thatprotection was embodied in the Fourth Amendment, commonly referred to asthe 'search and seizures' amendment. It guarantees: 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. (U.S. Constitution, Fourth
" Arguably-and it will beargued later-interpretations through the centuries have been fairly strict. " It would seem unequivocal that the Patriot Act violates the intent ofthe Fourth Amendment. ' Like every significant phrase in the Constitution-and which ofthem is not significant'-this phrase has been interpreted through the yearsby various courts, including the Supreme Court, of course. While it is one thing to worry about the constitutionality ofsearching U. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly, last fall,voted to defund the 'sneak and peek' searches-the fishing expeditions-thePatriot Act allowed (Pheneger, 2004. There is a line, however, beyond which therights of citizens are negated in the drive to make them safe fromattackers within the society, or from outside. Under the Patriot Act, there is no need for anylaw enforcement agency to prove any sort of probable cause if an officerthinks the target might possibly be involved with terrorist activities. government has been accused of ignoring the Constitution'srequirement for 'probable cause. This may bewhat led to the philosophical acceptance by Congress of the Patriot Act. In court, he wasconvicted and sentenced to ten years in prison. The officer requested and wasgranted permission to search by the driver, Pringle-negating the need for awarrant-and found five plastic bags of cocaine behind an armrest in theback seat. By 1992, the 'warrants with narrow exceptions' standard was no longer theone generally adopted by the Court. Pringle later waived hisMiranda rights and told the officers the crack was his.
Common topics in this essay:
Supreme Court,
Patriot Act,
Fourth Amendment,
Title III,
Oklahoma City,
Wide Web,
GPOaccess Web,
III Lee,
Court Appeals,
Quoted Bradley,
probable cause,
patriot act,
fourth amendment,
supreme court,
law enforcement,
'probable cause',
lee 2003,
title iii,
criminal activity,
* prevent,
law enforcement intelligence,
web site 1996,
enforcement intelligence agencies,
gpoaccess web site,
title iii lee,
|
Acceptance Essays
