Fourth Amendment to the Constitution covers the protection of the individual from unlawful searches and seizures when in the privacy of their own home. Because of the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers are required to secure an official court order or warrant to search the premises, and that warrant must be based on probable cause.
Although the Fourth Amendment does protect against the intrusion onto private property, there are several exceptions to the Fourth Amendment in which law enforcement is given leeway and greater degrees of power over the individual. Courts have also ruled increasingly in favor of the rights of law enforcement officers to infringe upon Fourth Amendment rights in specific situations, as with "stop and frisk" scenarios in which probable cause can be loosely defined and based on subjective police impressions of suspicious behavior ("Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants," n.d.). Another exception to Fourth Amendment rights relates to the "reasonable expectation" of privacy; if there is no "reasonable" expectation of privacy, then law enforcement can use search and seizure methods with probable cause -- again loosely defined (Cornell University Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Beginning with Carroll v. United States, the courts have also consistently ruled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in one's personal vehicle. Law enforcement officers can search private automobiles and seize property if there was probable cause to do so. The probable cause to search a motor vehicle may be unrelated to the items or contraband that was actually found. For example, officers can pull over a vehicle for a traffic violation and if the officer reasonably suspects that contraband is present, then a warrantless search can be conducted ("Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants," n.d.).
The Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution...
The Fifth Amendment also covers a more obscure issue of when the federal government seizes private property for public use. In such situations, the federal government is required under the provisions of the Fifth Amendment to provide "just compensation." In other words, if property is seized, the government must pay full market value for the property.
The Fifth Amendment comprises some of the most important checks on police power, while also protecting the individual from unfair legal proceedings. In criminal proceedings, the Fifth Amendment assures the right of the individual to refuse to self-incriminate. "Taking the Fifth" refers to the individual's Constitutionally protected right to avoid testifying against himself or herself in a court of law, even in a civil proceeding (Portman, n.d.).
Likewise, the Fifth Amendment prevents the state from retrying a person for the same crime twice. The Double Jeopardy rule applies to individuals who were acquitted or convicted, and also ensures that a person cannot receive more than one punishment for the same crime (Cornell University Legal Information Institute, n.d.). The provisions of the Fifth Amendment are applicable to both federal and state cases because of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The most famous implication of the Fifth Amendment was clarified in Miranda v. Arizona, the landmark Supreme Court case that gave the Miranda Rights their name. In Miranda, the court ruled that based on Fifth Amendment rights, law enforcement must clarify and detail the suspect's rights including the right to remain silent when under interrogation (the right to "plead the Fifth"), the right…
Hostage Negotiation The 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments have had serious impacts on modern hostage negotiations and will be examined in this paper. Elements that are to be considered include promise making, incriminating statements, as well as the planting of listening devices. Graham vs. Connor, State vs. Sands, and Taylor vs. Watters, among others, are some of the court cases that will be used in this discussion. Again, the impact of
U.S. Constitution: Discussion Questions A) The Fourteenth Amendment: the Case of Whitney V. California 274 U.S. 357 Whitney V. California (No. 3) Argued: October 6, 1925 Decided: May 16, 1927 453 Affirmed Location: Socialist Convention at Loring Hall Factual Analysis: Anita Charlotte Whitney, who subscribed to the CLPC (Communist Labor Party of California), found herself was arraigned for breaching the state's 'Criminal Syndicalism Act', which forbade any actions aiding or advocating crime commission, including "terrorism as a means
Due Process and the 14th Amendment Which of the protections available to criminal offenders through the Bill of Rights do not currently apply to the states? "Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment originally only applied in federal court. However, in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rights guaranteed by the text of the Fourth Amendment…apply equally in state courts
Protecting Liberty Individual rights Bill of Rights defines the protections afforded individual citizens under the Constitution against excessive government intrusions into private lives and arbitrary prosecutions. These rights are contained in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Since these Amendments were first adopted by the ratifying states the courts have interpreted the intent of each and created rules that attempt to keep the government from running roughshod
(The Sixth Amendment, http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/6th_amendment.htm. Retrieved 6 December 2009.) The Fourteenth Amendment, although not (obviously) a part of the Bill of Rights, presents rights that are as central to our democracy as those outlined in the Bill of Rights, including an expansion of the definition of citizenship to include the slaves freed after the Civil War, and what is known as the "due process" clause. This clause argues that the government
The death penalty is not unconstitutional and is even mandatory for certain crimes with the judge and jury having little discretion in the matter in order to avoid violating the provision that prohibits 'cruel and unusual punishment' the methods used for execution of the death penalty should be humane and sensible. While the criminal may lack in possessing any compassion whatsoever that this complete lack of the ability to have