Arguments Against The Fourth Amendment

The fourth amendment is the protection from unreasonable search and seizure unless probable cause is present and in most cases, a warrant is issued. This amendment was included in the Declaration of Independence due to searches that the colonists were subjected to. The colonists did not want to pay the taxes being enforced by the King, so they began to smuggle goods into the United States via boat. The King of Britain obviously did not agree with this, so he sent British ships that could stop and search any boat coming or going from Britain to the American colonies. These searches were invasive and they could take anything that they wanted from the ships that they searched. Thus, it became very important to the founding fathers that it be included
Strieff. This case was argued from February 22nd, 2016, through June 20th, 2016. During the process of this case, a man named Edward Strieff was spotted by a Salt Lake City police officer who had been conducting surveillance on a home that was thought to be involved in the distribution of illegal substances. After exiting the home that the officer was surveilling, Strieff walked to a nearby convenience store. The officer followed Strieff and stopped him out of suspicion that he was in the possession of illegal substances. Strieff maintained that he had done nothing illegal and the officer was violating his fourth amendment when he stopped him and searched him. The officer did find illegal substances on Strieff and arrested him for its possession. Only then did the officer perform a background check and discovered that Strieff has a warrant for his arrest on an unrelated charge. This case reached the Supreme Court, where a decision was reached. This decision was that the search conducted by the Salt Lake City police officer was constitutional despite the fact that the initial stop of Strieff was illegal. The illegal substance was admissible in a court of law even though they found the arrest warrant after Strieff was searched. This is important to the fourth amendment because throughout history, the fourth amendment has been challenged and chipped away at due to the evolution of privacy
Redding. This case was argued from April 21rst, 2009, to June 25th, 2009. During this case, a 13 year old girl named Savana Redding was thought to be in possession of prescription grade ibuprofen. Another student attending the school was alerted of weaponry such as knives and pills located in Savana’s day planner. This student reported this to a teacher and the teacher alerted the assistant principal. The assistant principal removed Savana from class and brought her down to her office where she asked Savana about the contents of the planner and why it was in her possession. When asked, Savana replied that she owned the planner but did not know of the contents that it contained, however she did say that she had lent it to her friend Marissa. When Marissa was asked about the contents of the planner, she confirmed her and Savana’s relationship and stated that she did not have any knowledge of the planner’s contents or any of the pills that were in it. However another student claimed to have seen Savana give other students pills, and another student claimed to have gotten sick after ingesting a pill that they received from Savana, but had no idea that the pill was a prescription strength painkiller. Savana was asked to consent to the search of her backpack and other other personal effects such as her locker, to which she consented and claimed that she had nothing to