Find your subject
in our database of
Spark your creativity...
an impressive essay!
The Fourth Amendment search and seizure is mainly about privacy, and has been implemented to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures by State, or Federal law enforcement authorities. This amendment has been changed many times to suit the needs of the people. Some of those are searching cars, mobile homes, trash and searches that are conducted by consent. The other aspect that is covered in the Fourth Amendment is on search warrants.
The Fourth Amendment states that: 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 (Kaci 221). The Fourth Amendment can be broken down into three sections, first is to provide protection for a person, his home and belongings, second, to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, and thirdly, warrants must be based on probably cause and specifically described as to what must be seized.
The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues (Nolo 2). To satisfy this guideline, the Court has to ask three questions. The first question is if the person expected some degree of privacy and the second is if that expectation is reasonable. If these two questions are answered yes, then the last question to be answered is if the search was reasonable or unreasonable.
There have been many cases recorded that have helped form the guidelines for understanding reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. Some of the cases involve aircraft surveillance, a motor home, and a person's trash. A few Supreme Court cases to look at in order to find relevant topics are: California vs. Ciraolo, California vs. Carney, and California vs. Greenwood.
The Santa Clara, Cal., police received an anonymous telephone tip that marijuana was growing in respondent's backyard, which was enclosed by two fences and s
Terminology mentioned in this term paper
Names referenced in this report
Greenwood, Carney, Ciraolo,
Organizations included in this paper
California court of Appeal, Supreme Court, California trial court, California Supreme Court, Drug Enforcement Administration, State Superior Court, Superior Court,
Locations talked about in this essay
California, Santa Clara,
Health Conditions referenced in this paper
Keywords talked about in this paper
search warrant, marijuana, California, searches and seizures, police officers, Supreme Court, privacy, probable cause, Superior Court, mobile home, California Superior Court, search and seizure, motor vehicle exception, trial court, Drug Enforcement Administration, downtown san diego, privacy issues, trash collector, legitimate expectation, police station, reasonable, California Constitution, vehicle, nolo contendere, Oath or affirmation, shall issue, narcotics trafficking, apparent authority, Federal law, ground level, Kaci, affidavit, guidelines, information, youth, yard, airplane, Cornell, surveillance, enforcement, questions, naked eye, remanded, magistrate, airway, roommate, definite, plea, felony, teenager,