The amendment deals with protecting people from the police or other government authority searching their homes and private property without search warrants that have been properly executed. The Founders considered truthful that freedom from intrusion into one’s home by the government was a natural right granted by God and that it was fundamental to liberty. They experienced unreasonable searches and seizures by the King or appointed officials. For instance, as colonists they were susceptible to writs of assistance which means they could have all of their goods seized for the British authority. These events led to the 4th amendment (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) being added to the Constitution and being part of the Bill of Rights. When the Fourth Amendment became part of the Constitution, it was first applied to the federal government and then later to the states with the addition of the Due Process …show more content…
As said previously, US citizens should feel safe and secure in their own homes without worrying about invasion of privacy by law enforcement. If this amendment wasn’t around today the law enforcement and other government authorities could abuse their powers against American citizens. This amendment doesn’t only apply to homes but it also deals with your persons, papers and effects as well. We can see that this amendment is still needed today through this Supreme Court case that happened recently that deals with violation of the Fourth Amendment. The case is Missouri v. McNeely (Warrantless drawing of blood in DWI) (2013). The case involves a patrolman stopping a suspected drunk driver who refused to take a blood or breath test. The patrolman that stopped the suspected drunk driver drove him to a hospital and ordered technicians to draw blood from the suspect who was handcuffed without a warrant. This case resulted in a 5-4 ruling that determined immediate blood alcohol testing for determining drunk driving did not excuse the need for a warrant. ”(T)his Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests.” said Justice Sottomayor. We can take from this case of how the Fourth Amendment is still needed today by seeing how the patrolman abused his power and forced the hospital technicians to draw blood when the man