Fourth Amendment of the United

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution Full Text: "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." Constitution, Cornell University Law School Website). "Freedom from search or seizure without a warrant" is a typical summary of this amendment, and it covers the basics.

The essential qualities of this amendment are that a persons possessions may not be taken by the state, or themselves arrested by it, unless there is either probable cause (which has had varying interpretations), nor can their person or private belongings be searched unless a warrant specifically addressing what is to be searched and what is being sought has been issued based on reliable evidence/testimony (Franklin 1991).

Ratification: Along with the other first ten Amendments (known collectively as the Bill of Rights), the First Amendment was ratified by the various state legislatures on December 15, 1791, shortly (in relative legal terms) after the Constitutional Convention (U.S. Constitution Online). Probable Cause Probable cause is only mentioned in the amendment concerning the issuance of warrants, not in the actions of officers, nor is the term truly defined anywhere in the law.

Various judicial constructs have led to several defining parameters, however: while officers may act without a warrant given sufficient probable cause, less evidence is generally needed to obtain a warrant than to allow a warrant-less search. If the pieces of evidence and testimony offered "are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged" in the application for a warrant, then probable cause has been established and the warrant will be issued (Franklin 1991). Mapp v.

Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Facts: Dolores Mapp was convicted by the state of Ohio for possession of obscene materials that had been obtained by local police in an illegal search (conducted without a warrant). Issue: Did the exclusionary rules of evidence in federal courts as established by the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of freedom from search and seizure without probable cause or a warrant apply to state trials? Holding: The conviction was overturned; the illegally obtained evidence was deemed not permissible in state courts.

Reasoning: Central to this ruling was the assertion that "It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly provided the same limitations on the individual state's as existed for the federal government in regards to civil liberties and protections, and therefore the same exclusionary rule based on the Fourth Amendment was held to apply to state proceedings. This directly overturned the ruling in Wolf v.

Colorado, which stated explicitly that the Fourteenth Amendment did not disallow illegally obtained evidence from being used in a state trial. United States v. Robinson 414 U.S. 218 (1973) Facts: Mr. Robinson was arrested for driving without a license by an officer who was made previously aware of the fact that Mr. Robinson's license had been suspended. During the post-arrest search, a packet of heroin was found on Mr. Robinson's person; he was convicted of possession.

Issue: Was there enough probable cause for the search, or was it unwarranted and therefore unreasonable? Holding: The search was deemed valid and the conviction upheld. Reasoning: As the search was conducted as part of standard police procedure following an arrest, especially for observed criminal activity, the issue of probable cause did not apply to the search's reasonability. The search was not abusive or extreme, and extended only to the defendant's person, and was therefore within the scope of vested police authority. Florida v. Wells 495 U.S. 1 (1990) Facts: Mr.

Wells was arrested for driving while intoxicated, and consented to the opening of the trunk of his car while it was being impounded. In addition to two marijuana cigarette butts in.