Bill+of+Rights+smital19

=__The 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." **//== []

Description

 * The fourth amendment was introduced in Congress during the year of 1789 by James Madison. Congress submitted this amendment on September 28, of 1787. On December 15, of 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified it. Then on March 1, of 1792, Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the fourth amendment.** **The fourth amendment gives Americans the right to not have their homes or personal property searched without a warrant and a just cause. The government can't walk into American's houses and take, or seize, their property. The Americans are secure in their houses, and shall not be violated by any way against the fourth amendment. This prohibits unreasonable searches Americans may not want to happen that could affect their privacy rights.**

[]



Historical Applications

 * The fourth amendment protects the Americans from searches in their homes and on their property, but to what extent? The fourth amendment does say that Americans have the right to have their home secure and to not be searched, but if government would to come with a warrant, they'd have to be let in, but it also says protected from an unreasonable search, this means that they are only protected from unreasonable searches. If the search wasn't unreasonable under the law such as an officer having consent to search, incident of a lawful arrest, or items, evidence, are in plain view. One example of police going against the fourth amendment is here.**
 * " In a 1914 ruling in Weeks v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule, which said that evidence taken in an illegal search – meaning without a warrant – cannot be used in court. It was the court’s solution to preventing illegal searches. However, the Weeks decision affected only federal cases. **


 * The exclusionary rule was extended to states in the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio. Dollree Mapp refused to allow Cleveland police to search her home for a bombing suspect because they did not have a warrant. She knew her rights. Eventually police got into the house to search for the suspect and wound up seizing pornographic comics that they found in a briefcase. Police charged Mapp with possession of obscene materials. She maintained they did not belong to her. **


 * The thing is, the police did not have a warrant – officers entering the house waved a fake one at Mapp. Mapp was found guilty of the obscenity charge, but she appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The justices overturned her conviction, saying the exclusionary rule applied in state courts, too. **


 * This was a significant ruling. As one scholar, University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt, put it, “Fourth Amendment rights are worthless if the exclusionary rule is not available.” " **
 * This is one example in U.S. history that shows the use of the fourth amendment in a bad way. Explaining how the police didn't listen to their rules and how one woman may have taken her rights to w whole new level. **

[] []

Today's Application
[] media type="custom" key="27357558" width="159" height="159" align="left"
 * Today, the fourth amendment has still been used. There are many examples of this amendment being used, or over-used, today in America. Here is one of those examples.**
 * "Kentucky v. King: Police pursuing a suspected drug dealer stopped outside an apartment, where they smelled marijuana. They knocked, announced themselves as police, heard a toilet flushing and suspected their suspect was destroying evidence. Turns out they were completely wrong – their suspect was not inside, and the occupant, Hollis King, was using the bathroom – but he was arrested without a warrant for possession of marijuana and cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that officers are allowed to act with urgency and enter without a warrant if they suspect evidence is being destroyed. However, they still have to demonstrate they had probable cause to do so – in other words, they can’t wander their beat, breaking down doors willy-nilly, they have to demonstrate a reason."**
 * This example explains how the police didn't explain a reason to search or have a warrant. The police didn't follow the fourth amendment and the man had a right to bring this to the supreme Court since the police didn't follow fourth amendment criteria. There are many more examples out there and the fourth amendment is still being used right now.**
 * Another example is in the year of 2013, police went into a couple's house and toke their five-month-old away from them with the CPS. Their fourth amendment rights were clearly violated. The police had no warrant and gave no reason to search their house and to take their child. They brought their baby to the hospital because the child had a heart murmur already and he was starting to show flu-like symptoms. They left the hospital they were in wanting to go to a different one and the doctors there said that they weren't worried about the child's safety at home with his parents. The next day, the police showed up at their house and toke their baby without a warrant or a proper reason.**

[] []