Arguments Against The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment reads: '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” (Donley, 2018). There are in fact two main rights placed in the Fourth Amendment. The first part of the amendment shields citizens from searches and seizures that are exclusively unreasonable in nature. The second part of the amendment decrees that warrants should declare precisely who and what they are for and should only be issued if there is a good reason. That means that law enforcement
Searches and seizures have for a variety of reasons been upheld, although under defective warrants, or none (Frankel, 2018, p. 377). In the Criminal Justice System, according to the Fourth Amendment, the terms such as reasonableness, the right to privacy, search, seizure, arrest, and are all connected. There are theories like “Stop and Frisk” that have very important standards but unearth numerous questions. Automobile search rules can be difficult to police officers; however, these are not the only searches that have been getting noticed. All these actions implemented by the police infringe on the privacy of others. Border and regulatory searches also have countless validity when illegal elements are discovered. The right to privacy is a vital human right that is specified by the United States Constitution, defending individuals from unnecessary and unwarranted invasion from government officials. In the modern world, the right to privacy, right to search, and the right to seize are of supreme consequence in the characteristics of the criminal investigation. A search is made by authorities with a legal document called a
Stop-and-frisk occurs in a situation where law enforcement maneuvers their authority by pulling over a vehicle and directing a search if there is reasonable cause such as alleged illegal arms trade. The open-fields search in the U.S. Law of Criminal methods is the legal principle that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court summarized its three conditions for the plain view doctrine to be cited. First, the law enforcement officer must lawfully be in the viewing area; however, evidence cannot be in plain view from an area banned by the Constitution. Second, the officer must uncover the evidence accidentally. There are times when searches can be performed without a court-ordered search warrant. These are called warrantless searches and it is the most common type of search handled by law enforcement. Under the Fourth Amendment, every search or seizure by a government agent must be