Importance Of The Fourth Amendment

According to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment can be best defined as an amendment providing 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 (Fourth, 2012). In general terms, the Fourth Amendment protects from illegal searches and seizures performed by governmental agents. In 1763, William Pitt stated that under any circumstance or living condition, whether the roof was falling in or the walls allowed wind through, even
United States. The Weeks vs. United States case took place in Kansas City, Missouri in 1911 when Fremont Weeks was arrested for violating the criminal code by sending lottery tickets via mail (Weeks, n.d.). Officers searched Weeks home while he was not present without any evident warrant, and seized papers and articles that were then given to U.S. Marshals (Weeks, n.d.). In addition, access to Weeks home was given by his neighbor who knew where a key was hidden. Later, officers and U.S. Marshals returned to Weeks home to seize envelopes and other evidence found, also without an issued warrant. Weeks petitioned against this case for his personal documents to be returned, and stated that the evidence used against him was obtained illegally (Weeks, n.d.). Weeks was protected during this unreasonable search, seeing that his home was searched without warrant and items were seized (Judicial, 2016). Nearly three years later in 1914, Weeks walked out of court without any charges and the evidence found in his home was excluded (Weeks, n.d.). This case concluded that evidence must only be collected via constitutional expectations and by no other means (Judicial, 2016). It also established that evidence obtained without warrant must be excluded in any federal court in the United States without exceptions (Judicial, 2016). Consequently, the case created the exclusionary rule which states that evidence obtained illegally is sometimes admissible in a court of law, but with
Arizona. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home for the investigation of probable kidnapping, rape, and robbery (Miranda, 2006). After Miranda was taken to the police station and interrogated for two hours, the officer’s finally gathered a written statement made by him that was used against his defense. During court, the police officer’s admitted to the fact they had not read Miranda his rights, especially the right to an attorney present during the interrogation. In conclusion, Miranda was indeed found guilty of these criminal acts (Miranda, 2006). Although Miranda had not questioned the officer’s or requested for an attorney, the Supreme Court of Arizona stated that Miranda’s constitutional rights had not been violated. Miranda also suffered with a mental instability and did not request for counsel to be present during the case (Miranda, 2006). Miranda appealed the U.S. Supreme Courts decision. After review, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that the evidence collected could not be used against Miranda due to Miranda not being informed of his rights before he was interrogated (Miranda, 2006). After this case, a series of “Miranda rights” were put into place to protect a defendant who is being arrested and interrogated (Miranda, 2006). The rights must be read to any and all defendants during custody and before they are