Fourth Amendment the Right of the People

Fourth 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" (Cornell University Law School. N.D.). As with a preponderance of Constitutional issues the meaning of the Fourth Amendment has undergone an evolvement from its original intent and purpose as set forth in its composition by the founders and inclusion in the Bill of Rights. "The framers of the Constitution adopted the amendment in response to the writ of assistance (a type of blanket search warrant) that was used during the American Revolution" (Reed, J. May 24, 2011.). The Supreme Court in its role as Constitutional explicator has addressed the scope and boundaries of the Fourth Amendment in a plethora of opinions, perhaps none more important than two decisions set forty years apart: Olmstead v. U.S. And Katz v. U.S.

Olmstead v. U.S.

Analyzing the stated language of the Fourth Amendment there is not an explicit definition of what constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure; only a generalized guarantee of protection against government intrusion. Prior to the Olmstead case in 1928 the Court had not commented substantively into Fourth amendment matters, the exception being Weeks v. U.S. In which the "the exclusionary rule was born; the exclusionary rule forbids the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial" (Fourth Amendment summaries.com. N.D.). The Court in Olmstead looked to more specifically identify the precise meaning of the reasonableness of search and seizure by government authorities. The case which involved "wiretaps of the basement of Olmstead's building (where he maintained an office) and in the streets near his home" (Oyez.org. N.D.) led the Court to consider the question of whether "the use of evidence disclosed in wiretapped private telephone conversations, violate the recorded party's Fourth and Fifth Amendments?" (Oyez.org. N.D.).

The Court's decision upholding a lower court conviction of Olmstead on bootlegging charges must be placed in the context of the nation's prohibition of alcohol and the government's attempts to enforce the 18th Amendment. As such the Court's opinion reflects a need for officers to utilize means necessary to collect "evidence of a conspiracy to violate the Prohibition Act" (Cornell University Law School. N.D.). The majority opinion reads the Fourth Amendment narrowly across several key areas. First, the wiretapping of "the basement of a large office building and on public streets" (Cornell University Law School. N.D.) did not constitute "trespass upon any property of the defendants" (Cornell University Law School. N.D.). Here the Court articulates a standard that a search is reasonable provided it does not "refer to an actual physical examination of one's person, papers, tangible material effects, or home" (Oyez.org. N.D.). Because none of Olmstead's personal property had been intruded upon, no unreasonable search had been committed. Second, the Court reasoned that wiretapping did not constitute a search because the protection of "the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not include the protection of "their conversations" (Oyez.org. N.D.). Lastly, "the wiretaps did not violate the Fourth Amendment because there had been no physical intrusion" (Law.JRank.org. N.D.) into areas which would be considered constitutionally protected. In identifying these markers, the Court's narrow constriction of the reading of the Fourth Amendment indicates the "interest of liberty will not justify enlarging