Fourth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

In most circumstances, government action is implicated when a government official conducts a . Generally speaking, the Fourth Amendment’s limitations do not apply to by private parties unless those are conducted at the direc­tion of the government. Private parties who independently acquire evidence of a crime may turn it over to law enforcement.

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? | United States …

The Fourth Amendment was intended to create a constitutional buffer between U.S. citizens and the intimidating power of law enforcement. It has three components. First, it establishes a privacy interest by recognizing the right of U.S. citizens to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Second, it protects this privacy interest by prohibiting that are "unreasonable" or are not authorized by a warrant based upon probable cause. Third, it states that no warrant may be issued to a law enforcement officer unless that warrant describes with particularity "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | …

In 2012, the court had ruled on trespass grounds that longer-term GPS monitoring was a search triggering Fourth Amendment protections.

The 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments," a concept rooted in English law. But again, what does the phrase really mean? By far, the most controversial issue that centers on the 8th Amendment is capital punishment, or the practice of issuing death sentences to those convicted of major crimes.


Fourth Amendment Flowchart - Scribd

The American Revolution answered the questions surrounding writs of assistance, but the Fourth Amendment raised other questions in the newly founded republic. If a police officer's suspicion is no longer sufficient to obtain a , as it was in colonial America, where should the line be drawn separating suspicion from probable cause? Although general warrants are now clearly prohibited, how detailed must warrants be to pass constitutional muster? The Fourth Amendment expressly forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures, but what criteria should be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a search? The Fourth Amendment also leaves open the question of who should review warrant applications—the judiciary or some other branch of government. The answers to these questions were explored and developed in criminal litigation over the next two centuries.

The fourth amendment can be broken down into two distinct parts

New York, that "indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of ‘general warrants’ were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment." When James Madison drafted the Fourth Amendment, he relied heavily on the Massachusetts Constitution, which forbade warrants that did not specify the "persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure."

Posts about fourth amendment written by Luis Miranda

Fourth Amendment questions arise during criminal litigation in the context of a suppression hearing. This hearing is prompted by a defendant who asks the court to review the method by which the police obtained evidence against him or her, and to determine whether that evidence survives constitutional scrutiny. If the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it usually will be excluded from trial, which means the prosecution will be unable to present it to the jury. The legal doctrine under which illegally obtained evidence is suppressed is known as the , and its purpose is to deter and to protect defendants from it.

These are words of Francis Lieber with regard to the Fourth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment also grants the right to a defendant to refrain from testifying against himself or herself. Probably the most famous modern interpretation of this provision is the right to remain silent. The famous (1966) case required that individuals arrested for a crime must be advised of their right to remain silent and to have counsel present. This intended to prevent forced or involuntary confessions under police pressure. Although the Supreme Court had long held that involuntary confessions could not be used in federal courts, state courts did not always comply. Now local police departments must issue warnings known as "Miranda Rights" to people that they arrest.