Fourth Amendment For all Americans, the Fourth Amendment is an essential element of the U.S. Constitution that protects everyone's rights. This has influenced the way that the criminal justice system is interacting with defendants and the tactics that are utilized by law enforcement when conducting investigations. To fully understand how this is impacting society and legal proceedings requires studying various sources. This will be accomplished using academic information (i.e. books, case law and journal articles) to highlight the issues. In the future, this paper will contribute to a greater understanding as to how it requires maintaining a balance in protecting individual rights and giving the government effective tools for enforcing the law. (McInnis, 2009) (Lively, 1999)

Body

The Fourth Amendment is designed to provide Americans with protections against unreasonable search and seizure. It has several different provisions that have been subject to various legal interpretations to include: the use of warrants, probable cause, the exclusionary rule and limitations. The combination of these factors is demonstrating how the application of these areas will depend upon a variety of circumstances.

One of the most important protections inside the Fourth Amendment is the use of search warrants. This is when the police must obtain written authorization from a judge to conduct a search based upon suspected criminal activity. During the process, law enforcement must demonstrate that a crime is taking place at the location and a search is necessary. This is designed to prevent someone from having their personal lives placed under a microscope without some kind of proof. (McInnis, 2009) (Lively, 1999)

The courts have ruled that the definition of a search applies not only to the actual property where someone lives. It is also covering when someone is using the telephone and other electronic device. In Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court said that any kind of electronic communication equipment (i.e. computer and telephone) fall under the classification of search. (McInnis, 2009) (Lively, 1999) While United States v. Jones, applied this definition to instances when law enforcement is trespassing on someone's property. Their presence and activities...

(McInnis, 2009) (Lively, 1999)
Yet, at the same time, there have been situations where these protections are not applicable. A good example of this can be seen with New Jersey v. TLO. In this case the Supreme Court ruled the protections of the Fourth Amendment do not apply to schools. This is because these are public institutions (which do not entitle the individual to these provisions). (McInnis, 2009) (Lively, 1999)

However, the extent that searches can be conducted must be kept within a certain limits. In Safford Unified School District v. Redding, it was determined that strip searchers are considered to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. These elements are showing how the courts are providing protections and giving law enforcement the flexibility to conduct searches. When there is an extreme position taken about these interpretations, is when they will rule against a particular action (in an effort maintain some kind of balance). (McInnis, 2009) (Lively, 1999)

Probable cause is when the police can conduct a search if they believe that a crime is in the process of being committed or the party is in possession of contraband. There are several different court cases which have affirmed this authority to include: Carroll v. United States and Illinois v. Gates. In Carroll v. United States, the Supreme Court determined that probable cause gives the police flexibility when conducting searches based upon the circumstances. While Illinois v. Gates, found that use of confidential informants is constitutional. However, the quality of their information will depend upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the investigation. These factors are showing how the courts are giving law enforcement more leeway when conducting searches. (McInnis, 2009) (Lively, 1999)

Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Woollcott (1984), who found that the rulings gave the police greater flexibility vs. using the two pronged approach (i.e. Aguilar v. Spinelli). This is designed to deal with the restrictions that were placed on the activities of law enforcement. These insights are illustrating how there have been conflicting interpretations…