Between Alec Baldwin wanting to know what’s in your wallet and William Devane asking you what’s in your safe, one has to wonder if there’s anyone left in this country who has read the Fourth Amendment?
(Modern American family).
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America.
The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it.
On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment.
Because the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to the states, and federal criminal investigations were less common in the first century of the nation’s history, there is little significant case law for the Fourth Amendment before the 20th century.
The amendment was held to apply to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure (including arrest) had to be limited in it’s scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it.
Fourth Amendment case law deals with three central questions: what government activities constitute “search” and “seizure”; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed.
Early court decisions limited the amendment’s scope to a law enforcement officer’s physical intrusion onto private property, but with Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court held that its protections, such as the warrant requirement, extend to the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations.
Law enforcement officers need a warrant for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.
The exclusionary rule is one way the amendment is enforced. Established in Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained through a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials.
Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” unless it inevitably would have been discovered by legal means. (Source Wikipedia).
If memory serves, (and it does), the first telephone my family ever had was a large black apparatus that hung on the wall between our dining room and our kitchen.
Its most fascinating attribute was a hand crank on the left side that featured a small pear-shaped brass knob.
It’s most annoying feature was the six other families on the same line.
My point, folks weren’t any more fond of someone having access to their privacy when I was a lad, than they are now.
Question: So why do we elect people to represent us in this nation that either don’t understand the “Fourth Amendment” of our Constitution, ..or who simply don’t respect it?
When I was a young man, I often hunted with an older fellow who once told me that to be safe from dangers in the woods, I didn’t need a gun, ..I just needed ta’ run faster than those I was with.
Sadly, ‘ol anecdotic “canards” just don’t hold true anymore.
Truth forges understanding, I’ll be back tomorrow