Search and Seizure 4th Ammendment Research Paper

Search and Seizure 4th Ammendment - Research Paper Example The officer must swear, under oath, by it. The amendment has been shaped by various cases along the way, examples being Mapp vs. Ohio in 1961, Katz vs. the United States in 1967, and United States vs. Jones in 2012. 1. Introduction Amendment IV of the bill of rights states, â€Å"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by affirmation or oath, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the things or persons being searched† (Asimow and Mader, 2004). Amendment IV has three sections; the first affords protection for the home, belongings, and the person of the individual. The second acts to prohibit seizures and searches, which are unreasonable, while the third insists based on a warrant, which means they must describe specifically what is to be seized, grounded by probability cause. The amendmen t is especially of importance given recent occurrences that have to do with invasion of the privacy of Arab Americans after 9/11. This paper will deal with the 4th amendment’s history, applicability, the rules for exclusion, exceptions made to the requirement of a warrant, and finally compile a number of important cases. 2. Adoption of Amendment IV Amendment IV, just like numerous other laws in the United States, has roots in the legal doctrine of England. Therefore, it is important to study its origin in both England and the United States. 2.1 History in the law of England In 1604, Sir Edward Coke ruled that everyone house was their fortress and castle, on top of being a defence against violence and injury, in the Semayne’s case. This case led to the acknowledgement that the monarchy did not possess unchallenged ability for the intrusion of its subject’s dwellings. The ruling, however, permitted agents of the government to carry out seizures and searches with l awful purpose, and possession of a warrant. Intensity of court cases against officers of the state had grown in bounds by 1760, especially since some of the officers still utilized general warrants (Taslitz, 2006). The case involving John Entick, into whose home Nathan Carrington, a messenger of the king, had entered forcibly in order to arrest his friends for the publishing of seditious papers. In the case, Charles Pratt ruled that the warrant was lacking in probable cause and that it did not specify which documents were to be seized (Taslitz, 2006). This case was a precedent in the limitation of the executive’s power to intrude on property deemed private. 2.2 History in America General Warrants and their use were barred via the enacting of legislation by the Massachusetts colony in 1756. This was brought about by complaints from the public over the 1754 Excise Act, which granted powers to the taxman that enabled the utilization of general warrants for the seizure of uncusto med and prohibited goods (Taslitz, 2006). James Otis, in a court petition, in 1761, denounced these policies, but the court ruled against him. After the election to the colonial legislature of Massachusetts, he pushed through legislation that demanded the granting of writs of assistance by judges, with the officer demanding them to be put under oath. However, the British governor overturned this. The Virginia declaration of rights, however, abolished general warrants