Essay On Fourth Amendment Violation
Abstract
The understanding of the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and its relevance for searches and seizures is critical for any investigator, and it strikes a balance between individual liberties and the rights of society. Most importantly, the limitation on any search is that the scope must be narrow, if a search is not conducted legally, the evidence obtained is worthless. As a matter of fact, the exclusionary rule established that courts may not accept evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure, regardless of its relevance to a case.
The Fourth Amendment Violation
(Should the legal requirements for obtaining a search warrant be changed?)
You are probably quite familiar with the phrase “a man's home is his castle.” This quote is actually a proverb, "an Englishman's home is his castle" which became very popular after the Attorney General for England during the early 1600s, Sir Edward Coke said: "Everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose". Coke spoke those words following what is known as the Semayne's case, which essentially acknowledged — …show more content…
all the way back in 1604 — that the king did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings unless the purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained. It is the Semayne's case that actually laid the groundwork for the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads as follows:
The right to 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 and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
According to the Fourth amendment, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation". If that be the case, why are there so many lies and false arrest of citizens? The legal requirements for obtaining a search warrant should not be changed. However, every search must be firmly based on an understanding of the restrictions under which police officers must operate. There are so many things that needs to be taken into consideration relating to searches such as, basic limitation on searches, the exclusionary rule, justification for reasonable searches and many more.
The Fourth Amendment strikes a balance between individual liberties and the rights of society. It is an outgrowth of desire to the founders of the United States to eliminate the offences British practices that existed before the Revolutionary War, such as forcing the colonists to provide British soldiers housing and discriminately searching the homes of those suspected of disloyalty to the king. The Fourth Amendment meant to ensure that the new government would respect its citizens' dignity and privacy: "The critical distinction to be made at this point is that the only 'privacy' that counts is that privacy that society is willing to accept as reasonable as interpreted by the courts. (Ivy and Orput, 2007, p.8)
Besides searches should be reasonable, this depends on the balance between the public interest and the individual's right to be left alone from arbitrary interferences from the law enforcement" The courts are bound by rules and can admit evidence only if it is obtained constitutionally. Thus, the legality of a search must be kept in mind during an investigation, (Orthmann and Hess, 2013, p.96 ).
The existing legal requirement for obtaining a search warrant are often violated. We are familiar with scenes where police officers enter homes or businesses, searching and seizing personal properties without a warrant, after either watching crime dramas on television or seen/heard of actual cases. Thus, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, which often -- but not always -- means that government agents must have a warrant to search and seize your person and property.
As a matter of fact, the author has spoken to an individual who have been through a similar situation, where government agents (police and FBI) have gotten a search warrant for "A PARTICULAR ITEM" (I emphasized on that because it was for one item). In this case, this is where basic limitation on searches comes into play. The most important limitation on any search is that the scope must be narrow. However, the entire house was searched, including under the bed and in closets after the item was found and it was in clear view. As a result of the search, another item (gun) was found, which was not illegal to have possession of. As a matter of fact, the gun was used in court against the suspect. In contrast to "The Exclusionary Rule" - the court enforce the prohibition against unreasonable searches set forth in the Fourth Amendment and is referred to as the "fruit of the poisonous-tree". This means evidence that was obtained illegally must be excluded from the trial. So, if so be the case, why was the gun used in court? There are occasions when police officers do not need a warrant to make a search "incident to an arrest." After an arrest, police officers have the right to protect themselves by searching for weapons and to protect the legal case against the suspect by searching for evidence that the suspect might try to destroy. They may sometimes also make what is known as a "protective sweep" following an arrest if they have a reasonable belief that a dangerous accomplice might be hiding inside a residence. When making a protective sweep, police officers can walk through a residence and make a "cursory visual inspection" of places where an accomplice might be hiding. For example, police officers could look under beds and inside closets. If a sweep is lawful, the police can lawfully seize contraband or evidence of crime that is in plain view during the sweep. With that in mind, the gun that was seized was not in plain view, it was locked away and hidden in the closet, which makes the seizure illegal.
Another incident that was considered illegal by the court was the State of Rhode Island v. Michael Patino reported by Brodkin, (2012). In this case a mother, Trisha Oliver called 911 from her apartment in Cranson, Rhode Island when her six-year-old son, Marco Nieves, stopped breathing. The Fire Department took Marco to Hasbro Children's Hospital, where he was found to be in full cardiac arrest. He died 11 hours later.
By 6:20am, Sgt. Michael Kite of the Cranston Police Department had arrived at the apartment, where he found Oliver, her boyfriend Michael Patino, and their 14-month-old daughter, Jazlyn Oliver. Kite observed a couple of stripped beds and linens on the floor, a trash can with vomit inside it, dark brown vomit in a toilet, and, crucially, a cell phone on the kitchen counter. Kite picked up the cell phone, and it was at that point—in the just-released opinion of a Rhode Island state court—that police proceeded to mangle a murder case and violate Patino's Fourth Amendment rights by viewing text messages without a warrant.
The officer viewed a text message on the phone which was owned by the child’s mother. The messages were related to the death of the child between the mother and Patino. According to court records, some of the messages had profane language and reference to punching Marco, the deceased three times and the hardest of which was in the stomach. As a result Patino was arrested and charged with murder.
Kite claims he picked up the phone because it was "beeping," and that he thought it might help get in touch with the boy's birth father.
But yesterday, Rhode Island Superior Court Associate Justice Judith Savage threw out nearly all of the evidence police collected from that point on, including the contents of cell phones, phone records and communications provided by Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint Nextel, landline phone records, and even Patino's "confession for the death of Marco Nieves." Savage said almost all the evidence obtained by police was "tainted by the illegal search made by Sgt. Kite or the other illegal searches and seizures of cell phones and their content,." Patino is fighting the case both on Constitutional grounds and on the facts. He says the injuries to the boy were an accidental result of horsing
around.
The courts have adopted guidelines to assure that there are justification for reasonable searches. If law enforcement officers adhere to these guidelines, rules and regulations, such as, a search warrant being issued and consent is given. Also, if an officer stops a suspicious person and believes the person may be armed, the search is incidental to a lawful arrest and an emergency exists. If any of these preconditions exists then the search and/or seizures will be considered reasonable and legal.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, Therefore, investigators must know what constitutes a reasonable, legal search. To search effectively, know the legal requirements for searching, the items you are searching for and the elements of the crime. Be organized, systematic and thorough.
Bergman, P. & Berman, S. J. 2011 The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, (6th ed.)
Orthmann, C. H. & Hess, K. M., 2013 Criminal Investigation (10th ed.)
Siegel, J. (2012) Fourth Amendment Violation Alert - Retrieved from http://www.wealthdaily.com Brodkin, J. (2012) Police seizure of text message violated 4th Amendment – Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com
The understanding of the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and its relevance for searches and seizures is critical for any investigator, and it strikes a balance between individual liberties and the rights of society. Most importantly, the limitation on any search is that the scope must be narrow, if a search is not conducted legally, the evidence obtained is worthless. As a matter of fact, the exclusionary rule established that courts may not accept evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure, regardless of its relevance to a case.
The Fourth Amendment Violation
(Should the legal requirements for obtaining a search warrant be changed?)
You are probably quite familiar with the phrase “a man's home is his castle.” This quote is actually a proverb, "an Englishman's home is his castle" which became very popular after the Attorney General for England during the early 1600s, Sir Edward Coke said: "Everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose". Coke spoke those words following what is known as the Semayne's case, which essentially acknowledged — …show more content…
all the way back in 1604 — that the king did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings unless the purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained. It is the Semayne's case that actually laid the groundwork for the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads as follows:
The right to 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 and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
According to the Fourth amendment, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation". If that be the case, why are there so many lies and false arrest of citizens? The legal requirements for obtaining a search warrant should not be changed. However, every search must be firmly based on an understanding of the restrictions under which police officers must operate. There are so many things that needs to be taken into consideration relating to searches such as, basic limitation on searches, the exclusionary rule, justification for reasonable searches and many more.
The Fourth Amendment strikes a balance between individual liberties and the rights of society. It is an outgrowth of desire to the founders of the United States to eliminate the offences British practices that existed before the Revolutionary War, such as forcing the colonists to provide British soldiers housing and discriminately searching the homes of those suspected of disloyalty to the king. The Fourth Amendment meant to ensure that the new government would respect its citizens' dignity and privacy: "The critical distinction to be made at this point is that the only 'privacy' that counts is that privacy that society is willing to accept as reasonable as interpreted by the courts. (Ivy and Orput, 2007, p.8)
Besides searches should be reasonable, this depends on the balance between the public interest and the individual's right to be left alone from arbitrary interferences from the law enforcement" The courts are bound by rules and can admit evidence only if it is obtained constitutionally. Thus, the legality of a search must be kept in mind during an investigation, (Orthmann and Hess, 2013, p.96 ).
The existing legal requirement for obtaining a search warrant are often violated. We are familiar with scenes where police officers enter homes or businesses, searching and seizing personal properties without a warrant, after either watching crime dramas on television or seen/heard of actual cases. Thus, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, which often -- but not always -- means that government agents must have a warrant to search and seize your person and property.
As a matter of fact, the author has spoken to an individual who have been through a similar situation, where government agents (police and FBI) have gotten a search warrant for "A PARTICULAR ITEM" (I emphasized on that because it was for one item). In this case, this is where basic limitation on searches comes into play. The most important limitation on any search is that the scope must be narrow. However, the entire house was searched, including under the bed and in closets after the item was found and it was in clear view. As a result of the search, another item (gun) was found, which was not illegal to have possession of. As a matter of fact, the gun was used in court against the suspect. In contrast to "The Exclusionary Rule" - the court enforce the prohibition against unreasonable searches set forth in the Fourth Amendment and is referred to as the "fruit of the poisonous-tree". This means evidence that was obtained illegally must be excluded from the trial. So, if so be the case, why was the gun used in court? There are occasions when police officers do not need a warrant to make a search "incident to an arrest." After an arrest, police officers have the right to protect themselves by searching for weapons and to protect the legal case against the suspect by searching for evidence that the suspect might try to destroy. They may sometimes also make what is known as a "protective sweep" following an arrest if they have a reasonable belief that a dangerous accomplice might be hiding inside a residence. When making a protective sweep, police officers can walk through a residence and make a "cursory visual inspection" of places where an accomplice might be hiding. For example, police officers could look under beds and inside closets. If a sweep is lawful, the police can lawfully seize contraband or evidence of crime that is in plain view during the sweep. With that in mind, the gun that was seized was not in plain view, it was locked away and hidden in the closet, which makes the seizure illegal.
Another incident that was considered illegal by the court was the State of Rhode Island v. Michael Patino reported by Brodkin, (2012). In this case a mother, Trisha Oliver called 911 from her apartment in Cranson, Rhode Island when her six-year-old son, Marco Nieves, stopped breathing. The Fire Department took Marco to Hasbro Children's Hospital, where he was found to be in full cardiac arrest. He died 11 hours later.
By 6:20am, Sgt. Michael Kite of the Cranston Police Department had arrived at the apartment, where he found Oliver, her boyfriend Michael Patino, and their 14-month-old daughter, Jazlyn Oliver. Kite observed a couple of stripped beds and linens on the floor, a trash can with vomit inside it, dark brown vomit in a toilet, and, crucially, a cell phone on the kitchen counter. Kite picked up the cell phone, and it was at that point—in the just-released opinion of a Rhode Island state court—that police proceeded to mangle a murder case and violate Patino's Fourth Amendment rights by viewing text messages without a warrant.
The officer viewed a text message on the phone which was owned by the child’s mother. The messages were related to the death of the child between the mother and Patino. According to court records, some of the messages had profane language and reference to punching Marco, the deceased three times and the hardest of which was in the stomach. As a result Patino was arrested and charged with murder.
Kite claims he picked up the phone because it was "beeping," and that he thought it might help get in touch with the boy's birth father.
But yesterday, Rhode Island Superior Court Associate Justice Judith Savage threw out nearly all of the evidence police collected from that point on, including the contents of cell phones, phone records and communications provided by Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint Nextel, landline phone records, and even Patino's "confession for the death of Marco Nieves." Savage said almost all the evidence obtained by police was "tainted by the illegal search made by Sgt. Kite or the other illegal searches and seizures of cell phones and their content,." Patino is fighting the case both on Constitutional grounds and on the facts. He says the injuries to the boy were an accidental result of horsing
around.
The courts have adopted guidelines to assure that there are justification for reasonable searches. If law enforcement officers adhere to these guidelines, rules and regulations, such as, a search warrant being issued and consent is given. Also, if an officer stops a suspicious person and believes the person may be armed, the search is incidental to a lawful arrest and an emergency exists. If any of these preconditions exists then the search and/or seizures will be considered reasonable and legal.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, Therefore, investigators must know what constitutes a reasonable, legal search. To search effectively, know the legal requirements for searching, the items you are searching for and the elements of the crime. Be organized, systematic and thorough.
Bergman, P. & Berman, S. J. 2011 The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, (6th ed.)
Orthmann, C. H. & Hess, K. M., 2013 Criminal Investigation (10th ed.)
Siegel, J. (2012) Fourth Amendment Violation Alert - Retrieved from http://www.wealthdaily.com Brodkin, J. (2012) Police seizure of text message violated 4th Amendment – Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com