Fourth Amendment an Overview of Constitutional Searches and Seizures

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 are considered to be in line with these provisions (which require them obtaining a warrant). (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 as to how the Fourth Amendment is applied. This is demonstrating that the criminal justice system wants to maintain some kind of balance when utilizing these provisions in the real world. (Woollcott, 1984) (Lively, 1999)

The exclusionary rule is when evidence that was collected illegally cannot be used in a criminal proceeding. There have been different rulings about how it applies. For example in Wolff v. Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled that the application of these concepts was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This made it easy for law enforcement to submit any kind of evidence that was collected during an illegal search. (Lively, 1999)

However, as these abuses became more severe, is when they overturned this decision (in Mapp v. Ohio). This increased the protections that are applied when evidence is submitted during a criminal proceeding. This addresses extremes that were occurring at the hands of law enforcement. To deal with these challenges meant that some kind of new provisions were implemented. In the future, this ensured that suspects were given the ability to challenge the actions of the police and the evidence that is collected against them. (Lively, 1999)

There are limitations as to when the Fourth Amendment can be invoked. The most notable include:

During a grand jury proceeding.

Probation and parole hearings.

Military discharge hearings.

Child custody and endangerment proceedings.

During sentencing hearings.

Evidence collected by U.S. Customs agents.

Evidence collected by a private entity. (Orthmann, 2012)

These different elements are showing how the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the residence and personal communications of an individual. However, it does not cover select proceedings and law enforcement actions. This is designed to provide increased amounts of protection. Yet, it is also ensuring that they do not hamper the efforts of the criminal justice system. (Orthmann, 2012)

A good example of this can be seen with observations from Alvarez (2010). He found that the various rulings on the Fourth Amendment are based upon the swinging of the legal pendulum. This is when the courts will make decisions that are dealing with possible abuses of the Fourth Amendment or the strict guidelines it imposes. They will address these issues by ruling that certain types of activities are considered to be unconstitutional. This is when these changes will lead to more people using these provisions to give them an unfair advantage. (Alvarez, 2010)