Category: Fourth Amendment

Introduction

The Constitution of the United States of America is the most powerful document in the country, and its Fourth Amendment implies the necessity to secure personal space and items while disabling a search without a warrant and logical reasoning for its necessity (Mannheimer, 2015). Despite a high priority of this law, an extended variety of cases tends to exist due to the misunderstandings of the exceptions and details of the amendment. Consequently, the primary goal of this essay is to determine the understanding of the correlation between the Fourth Amendment and police entry, define potential requirements for a warrant, and describe the consequences leading to the exception for the warrant’s issue. Mary Ellis’ case is used to support the findings, and, in the end, the conclusions are drawn to summarize the primary outcomes of the essay.

The Fourth Amendment and Police Entry

Firstly, the correlation between the Fourth Amendment and the actions of the police on private property have to be determined to have a general perception of the allowed actions of the police. In this case, the Fourth Amendment states that the searches have to be connected to the judicial processes while having approval from the authority (judge), and other unreasonable searches are prohibited (437 U.S. 385, 1978). Based on the information provided above, it remains apparent that the Fourth Amendment controls the ability of the police officers to enter the private house and eliminates the violation of privacy simultaneously (Jackson, 2014). It could be said that the defilements of the law by the police are present in the world while portraying the disrespectful behavior of the officers (Jackson, 2014; Smith, 2002).

Despite the essentiality of the warrant for the search, the requirements tend to exist to assure compliance with the rationale of the law. In this instance, the police have to ensure the judge of the existence of the potential cause of the crime while providing reasoning for the necessity to search location to find additional evidence (437 U.S. 385, 1978). Nonetheless, regardless of having positive intentions and compliance with the legal system, obtaining the warrant requires time, and the essential evidence tends to be destroyed due to the inability to act legally without acceptance from the judge (437 U.S. 385, 1978). Consequently, the violations have a tendency to exist due to the necessity to review the following jurisdiction and the need to prioritize the vitality of the warrants (Bar-Gill & Friedman, 2012). One of the cases of violation is the actions of the police officer, Headricks, as he did not have a warrant for the search while entering the apartment without permission, and it led to his murder (437 U.S. 385, 1978).

This approach creates difficulties while resolving the crimes and the number of exceptions should be extended. In turn, the situation presented above-created confusion, as the actions of the police officers did not comply with any exclusions related to the entrance without the warrant. Currently, the special circumstances, which allow the police to enter the house without permission, are connected to the existence of the emergency (prohibiting the offense), the discovery of the additional victims of the murder, and acting when a person requires immediate medical assistance (437 U.S. 385, 1978). Nonetheless, the description of these aspects is unclear and general, and this matter can be regarded as a primary reason for the development of confusion related to the actions of Headricks. Alternatively, a combination of the factors mentioned above contributes to the understanding that the changes related to the warrant acceptability and circumstances, which allow the actions without the warrant, have to be introduced to ensure the reasonable actions of the police while maintaining the order in the society and complying with the core amendments in the Constitution.

Mary Ellis’ Case

To understand the application of the facts mentioned above, Mary Ellis’ case is used, as the woman faces a disturbing image while finding her neighbor with the stabbed knife in his back in her house. Mary Ellis calls 911 to report the situation. In this case, the primary question is the ability to assess the legality of the police entry t0 the woman’s house. In this case, it could be said that the police entry to Ellis’ house could be viewed as legal, as the owner of the house called 911 and allowed personal entry to the home. Meanwhile, the situation could be regarded as an emergency simultaneously, as the potential suspect is not determined while causing the threat to the owners of the house and the rest of the community. Additionally, it has to be mentioned that the house is the exact crime scene due to the presence of the dead body in one of the rooms. Consequently, the evidence is located around the house while making all of the rooms the center of the investigation. Based on the information provided above, it remains apparent the depicted case does not violate the principles of the Fourth Amendment while following the rationale to assure the exceptional case of the entry.

Another important aspect is the ability of the police to obtain the evidence without having a warrant while evaluating a potential extent of actions in the context of the presented case. It could be said that the police had to search for the evidence, as it would contribute to the determination of the actual killer. Nonetheless, the lawyer can use these actions against the police officers due to the significant importance of the warrant in the modern legal system, as some elements of the evidence could have been diminished by accident or on purpose (Bar-Gill & Friedman, 2012). It could be said that the police should terminate all actions at the crime scene and acquire a warrant to ensure the legality of their actions while avoiding adverse consequences in the future.

Conclusion

In the end, the essay assisted in revealing that the Fourth Amendment plays a critical role in defining the acceptable actions of the police related to the permission for searching, and the warrant is required to conduct the legally accepted examination of the location. Meanwhile, various circumstances such as emergencies tend to exist to ensure the ability of the police to enter the public property in critical cases to eliminate the offense. All of the matters described above were highly revealed in Mary Ellis’ case, as the police were not required to have a warrant due to the emergency reported by the owner of the house and the increasing threat due to the absence of the potential suspect in the location. Nonetheless, despite the initial positive intentions to obtain all the required evidence from the crime scene, the police officers had to ensure the legality of their actions. In this case, the lawyer can use the absence of a warrant in his favor while portraying the potential invalidity of the evidence.

References

Bar-Gill, O., & Friedman, B. (2012). Taking warrants seriously. Northwestern University Law Review, 106(4), 1609.

437 U.S. 385: Mincey v. Arizona. (1978). Web.

Jackson, J. (2014). The Fourth Amendment and search warrant presentment: Is a man’s house always his castle? American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 35(3), 525.

Mannheimer, M. (2015). The contingent Fourth Amendment. Emory Law Journal, 64(5), 1229.

Smith, J. (2002). Press one for warrant: Reinventing the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement through electronic procedures. Vanderbilt, 55(5), 1591.

Summary

It is easy to understand the rationale behind the Fourth Amendment. The same thing can be said of the outcome of the said law: the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine because the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to protect American citizens against the coercive capability of a powerful government. These legal principles came out as a result of the American people’s bitter experiences when the country was still under British rule. These legal principles were created to prevent illegal searches and illegal seizure of goods. However, there are exceptions to the rule, and the following discussion attempts to shed light on these exceptions.

Exclusionary Rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

When America was still under the control of the British Empire, its citizens suffer from general searches, known as “writs of assistance, to enforce laws against smuggling” (Schultz & Vile, 2005, p. 397). One can just imagine the humiliation and trauma caused by random searches and the deliberate violation of the principle that states that “a man’s home is his castle” (Schultz & Vile, 2005, p. 397). In addition, the Bill of Rights was created to assuage the fears of American citizens against the perceived overbearing power of the Federal Government. As a result, police officers and other law enforcement agents are prohibited from conducting any type of search or seizure of items from a residence or workplace without the application of a search warrant.

Items or pieces of evidence that were seized in the absence of a search warrant are deemed inadmissible in a court of law. In other words, the seized items are of no use to the prosecutor or the plaintiff. The court moves to exclude the said evidence for trial purposes. The evidence that was excluded in violation of the Fourth Amendment becomes the basis for the poisonous tree doctrine. In the process of investigating the residence of a person of interest or the suspect of a particular crime, it is not uncommon to create a chain reaction of events, such that the discovery of a single piece of evidence leads to the discovery of other sets of evidences that strengthen the case against the defendant. However, when the exclusionary rule made the primary evidence inadmissible in a court of law, the secondary evidence that was uncovered during the illegal search is considered as tainted or has become a fruit of a poisonous tree. Therefore, the evidence discovered at a later date is no longer acceptable according to the aforementioned legal framework.

Applying the Rules to the Case Study

At first glance, it seems like there was no need to obtain a search warrant to process the crime scene. This assertion was based on two irrefutable facts of the case. First, there was a murder scene. Second, Mary Ellis gave her consent when she called 911 and gave approval to the entry of police officers and emergency responders to her home. Nevertheless, there are other factors to consider, and upon closer examination of the facts pertinent to the case, the best course of action would have been to obtain a search warrant as a prelude to conducting an exhaustive search of the property.

The initial reaction was to forego the acquisition of a search warrant; however, this is not the best course of action. In the case, Mincey v. Arizona homicide detectives entered the property owned by Rufus Mincey, in the aftermath of a shooting death incident. The search was conducted without the aid of a warrant. Later on, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no crime scene exception to the Fourth Amendment rule. The only exception is those scenarios based on the exigent circumstances principle (Wecht & Rago, 2006). However, there was no real threat that would have caused the destruction of the evidence, and there were no other circumstances that compelled investigators to act in haste. In other words, they had enough time to secure a warrant. Going back to the case study, the mere presence of a dead body does not give officers the blanket authority to investigate and gather evidence without a search warrant.

With regards to the assertion that Mary Ellis provided consent when she dialed 911 and allowed police officers to enter her home, the law also states that it is imperative to protect and honor the privacy of the other occupants. During that time, Mary Ellis was living with her son, William Ellis. Her son did not give consent to the police officers and crime scene investigators to breach the privacy of his room (Gardner & Anderson, 2016).

Civil Liability of Police Officers

Theoretically speaking, police is civilly liable if found guilty of conducting an illegal search in the context of Fourth Amendment principles (Berlin, 2011). However, there are exceptions, such as conducting the said search and seizure of items in good faith. In other words, police officers eager to enforce the law and zealous in observing duties and responsibilities are immune from legal repercussions. The law seems to favor police officers when they operate within the bounds of the law, and if the failure to obtain a warrant was done without malice. The law shows greater favor to federal agents. In the case, Bell v. Hood the jurisprudence of the said case clarified the fact that the Fourth Amendment refers to the government and its agents, therefore it is impossible to sue federal officers as individuals (Schad, 1967). At the same time, The Federal Tort Claims Act prohibits suits that are consequences of false imprisonment, false arrest, slander, abuse of process, libel and misrepresentation (Schad, 1967). One can argue that the added layer of protection in favor of police officers and federal officers was made to encourage law enforcement officers to perform their duties without fear of reprisal.

Step-by-Step Process

After acknowledging Mary Elliss’s call for help, the responding police officer must knock on the door, announce his presence and authority. Once, Mary Ellis, it was made it clear that she was not resisting or challenging the authority of the law enforcement agents, then, the responding police officer must lead the way to secure the premise and provide assistance to the old woman. The responding officer must secure the area by making sure that the assailant was no longer inside the house, and at the same time, he makes sure that there are no other victims within the property. After transporting Mary Ellis to the nearest healthcare facility, the responding officer must limit his actions to that of securing the area against the possible destruction of evidence or the tampering of evidence. The next logical step is to secure a search warrant from a neutral magistrate. In the said application, the responding officer must clarify the exact location of the crime scene and indicate the purpose of the search warrant. The careful observance of the aforementioned procedures will ensure the admissibility of all types of evidence that were discovered by the crime scene experts.

Works Cited

Berlin, M. (2011). “Crime scene searches and the Fourth Amendment.” Investigative Science Journal, 3(2): 4-22.

Gardner, T., & Anderson, T. (2016). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Schad, M. (1967). Police liability for invasion of privacy. Web.

Schultz, D., Vile, J. (2005). The encyclopedia of civil liberties in America. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Wecht, C., & Rago, J. (2006). Forensic science and law. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Introduction

The people residing in the United States are protected by the Constitution, and their privacy and the right to not experience an invasion of their property are also an element of this legislation. However, there are several exceptions and cases when the state’s well-being and safety allow the government agents to invade the privacy of individuals, for example, to perform searches and seizures.

These cases are the exceptions, although there has been a debate and several Supreme Court cases that are related to this Amendment and the rights of specific groups of people under it. Although the Fourth Amendment guarantees the privacy rights of students, the practical examples and court cases suggest that in some instances, college administration can perform searches with a mere language announcement of such actions and without having to obtain a warrant. This paper will analyze the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to the searches and seizures performed by colleges and whether this legislation protects the privacy of the students who live on campus.

Fourth Amendment and Student Rights

Firstly, it is necessary to define the Fourth Amendment and discuss the purpose and outcome of this legislation is. According to the United States Courts (2021), “The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government” (para. 1). However, this legislation does not apply to all cases and has several exceptions, which allow government officials to perform searches. This Amendment defines the types of searches and their purpose that are deemed as reasonable and can be justified under the laws of the United States. Therefore, the basic principle of this Amendment is that the citizens of the United States should not be searched, and their property cannot be seized unless the case is a threat to the safety of the country and the public.

Secondly, one should understand the balance between the outcome of the search and the violation of the person’s rights. Morris (1969) states that this Amendment allows the searches and seizures in cases that are of public safety importance. Lemons (2012) argues that students perceive their dormitory rooms as private places, and there is a reasonable expectation that their privacy rights will not be violated in these places. These dormitories become the homes of the students during their studies, which from the viewpoint of the student-institution relationship should mean that the latter must respect the privacy and rights of the former. However, dormitories also house a large number of students, and the universities are responsible for their safety, which creates a space for interpreting the Fourth Amendment in a way that allows for searches on campus.

Another factor that predetermines the possibility of a search and seizure is the location where these actions take place. For example, schools have to have a warrant before performing a search of the individual’s property (United States Courts, 2021). One case that demonstrates this approach is the Trustees of the Dartmouth College V. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). This college was originally established as a religious-based institution that promoted the values that aligned with its mission.

However, this school received funds from the Federalist trustees, and the goal of this case was to convert this college into a private institution, which would not focus on religion and the integration of religion into education (Lemons, 2012). The Darthmund’s trustees claimed that the government of New Hampshire violated their constitutional rights by attempting to commit the conversion (Lemons, 2012). Hence, this case is an example of the conflict between the state and the private college’s trustees regarding the property rights and the ability of these trustees to make important decisions regarding the values and teaching standards at this institution.

A search warrant is not always necessary when performing searches in dorm rooms or sororities located on the campus of a university. According to Fossey (2018), this Amendment clearly guarantees the rights of the students who reside on the campus, and their privacy and property rights cannot be violated by the institutions’ administrations. Therefore, to perform a search, the administration has to obtain a warrant, which would require them to collect evidence and prove the necessity of such actions. All other instances of such searches are unconstitutional, and students have the right to protect their privacy.

However, Fossey (2018) and Alazmi (2018) argue that the same rules do not apply to non-students and individuals who do not reside on campus, which means that the administration can perform a search of such people if deemed necessary. Moreover, Fossey (2018) argues that “if the search is authorized by language in a housing contract or a reasonable regulation adopted to maintain safety, security, and an educational environment conducive to learning” (p. 10).

Morris (1969) argues that these searches are justified if the authorities have a sound underlying reason, such as the concerns regarding the University’s safety. A more recent example is the New Jersey v. TLO: 469 US 325 (1985), where the issue was the reasoning behind a search. This ruling suggests that if the administration has a proper justification for these actions, they do not have to obtain a search warrant.

The applicability of the Fourth Amendment to the searches and seizures performed on campus should be examined from the student-institution relationship viewpoint. In this regard, the colleges are the owners of the property that is situated on their campuses, which would provide them with the freedom to carry out the searcher. However, the property in the rooms where the students reside, although temporarily, belongs to these individuals, which evidently creates a conflict and a need to examine the Fourth Amendment’s applicability to this scenario with details.

Conclusion

In summary, this paper is the examination of the Fourth Amendment, which is the legislative guarantee that people in this state cannot be searched and their property shall not be taken from them without a sound justification. The main way to justify such actions is by citing a public safety concern. The cases such as the New Jersey v. TLO:: 469 US 325 (1985) show that these institutions do not have to obtain a search warrant.

However, their justification for these actions must be reasonable, for example, the concern regarding the safety of the students. Hence, although dormitories and sororities are the homes for the students residing in them, the student-institution relationship paradigm allows the latter to perform searches. These can be announced verbally, without any prior notification; however, the court cases and current legislations require the institution to justify their actions. Considering the responsibility of the universities to protect multiple students who reside on their campuses, the searches are justifiable even considering the Fourth Amendment.

References

Alazmi, A. (2018). Student privacy under the Fourth Amendment: Implications of student privacy at public colleges and universities in USA. 2018 IACB, ICTE Proceedings, 341-356.

Fossey, R. (2018). Students at public universities have a constitutional right to privacy in their dormitory rooms. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 44(3), 62-79.

Morris, J. (1969). Comment, the dormitory student’s Fourth Amendment Right to Privacy: Fact or fiction? Santa Clara Lawyer, 143, 1-10.

Lemons, B. R. (2012). Public education and student privacy: Application of the fourth amendment to dormitories at public colleges and universities. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2012(1), 1-10.

New Jersey v. TLO: 469 US 325. (1985).

The Trustees of the Dartmouth College V. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518. (1819).

United States Courts. (2021). What does the Fourth Amendment mean? Web.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution was adopted in 1792. It guarantees people’s right to the inviolability of their identity, home, documents, and property in case of unjustified search or arrests. The right must not be violated, and no orders must be signed if there is not enough justification for the statement. It may be confirmed either by jury or the allegation with the detailed description of the crime scene of the people who committed it (FindLaw, 2019). However, not every search that is conducted by the police officers requires the application of the Fourth Amendment. It concerns only those searches that are initiated by the government or its directives.

The Fourth Amendment makes police officers act reasonably and respectfully when they start search activities in a particular location. It is stated that police officers have no right to search people’s property, especially houses, without a warrant signed by a judge or neutral magistrate. However, there is one significant outcome of the Amendment that concerns the fact that it may be applied only to the seizures and search activities initiated by law enforcement institutions (FindLaw, 2019). In other words, the Fourth Amendment does not protect American citizens from the actions of private detectives or extremely curious neighbors. Hence, the Amendment may be applied only concerning the actions of a legal institution.

Apart from that, the Amendment still protects people’s confidentiality even if search activities have been conducted. People may hope to ensure their privacy, when it comes to the matters they keep for themselves, including clothes and personal belongings. When the matter concerns the house, people are interested in keeping secret what happens inside the house and are not considered a matter for public discussions, while things occurring outside bother them less (FindLaw, 2019). Hence, US law considers people’s privacy if the matter does not concern anything that a person knowingly demonstrates to the public.

The previous statement claims that the matters that people intentionally expose to the public are unlikely to stay secret during a seizure or search activity. The right to confidentiality does not concern things and personal issues that are not guided by people themselves as private. Thus, they are not protected by the Fourth Amendment in case of the search (FindLaw, 2019). That is why social media pages or phone numbers that are published on the Internet or other materials that everybody has access to are not considered private and are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

However, if a person faces unjustified search activity or even arrest, they may challenge the law enforcement’s actions. They may also require the elimination of all the evidence that was got due to the action that violated the country’s law (FindLaw, 2019). Apart from that, a person whose rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment were violated may sue the institution or those who did not observe his rules.

Taking into account all mentioned above, it is possible to conclude that the Fourth Amendment may be considered an ambiguous law. On the one hand, it guarantees and guides people’s privacy and confidentiality, but, on the other hand, it may be implemented only to the actions conducted by the government. In addition, the Amendment does not protect people’s property or information that was not held private before the investigation. In many cases, the actions of the law enforcement officers seem reasonable, a lot of people still face legal prosecution by mistake, so their reputation and property may be damaged due to the actions of the police officers.

Reference

FindLaw’s Team (2019). When the Fourth Amendment Applies. FindLaw, Web.