? asked in Education & ReferenceHomework Help · 1 decade ago

4th amendment, what can you tell me about it, i need information for my project?

4 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Here's a bit of info. . .

    FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'

    To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be 'reasonable. ' See U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44 ('85) (analyzing constitutionality of length of traveler's border detention under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard); Caban, 728 F.2d at 75 (considering whether duration of border detention without a hearing was reasonable).

    In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps typically incident to arrest. See id.

    Unreasonable Searches And Seizures.

    Non-consensual extraction of blood implicates Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' ***'n, 489 U.S. 602, 16 ('89) ('this physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes [a reasonable] expectation of privacy'); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 67 ('66) (compulsory blood test 'plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment').' '[f]or the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619; accord Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, No. 95-590, 1995 WL 373274, at *3 (June 26,'95) ('the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is `reasonableness''). A search's reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment generally depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued upon probable cause. U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83).

    Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68).

    The gathering of fingerprint evidence from 'free persons' constitutes a sufficiently significant interference with individual expectations of privacy that law enforcement officials are required to demonstrate that they have probable cause, or at least an articulable suspicion, to believe that the person committed a criminal offense and that the fingerprinting will establish or negate the person's connection to the offense. See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 813-18 ('85); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-28 ('69).

    Nevertheless, everyday 'booking' procedures routinely require even the merely accused to provide fingerprint identification, regardless of whether investigation of the crime involves fingerprint evidence. See Smith v. U.S., 324 F.2d 879, 882 (D.C. Cir.'63) (Burger, J.) ('it is elementary that a person in lawful custody may be required to submit to . . . fingerprinting . . . as part of the routine identification processes'); Napolitano v. U.S., 340 F.2d 313, 314 (1st Cir.'65) ('Taking fingerprints [prior to bail] is universally standard procedure, and no violation of constitutional rights.'). Thus, in the fingerprinting context, there exists a constitutionally significant distinction between the gathering of fingerprints from free persons to determine their guilt of an unsolved criminal offense and the gathering of fingerprints for identification purposes from persons within the lawful custody of the state.

    Although the drawing of blood from free persons generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a person has committed a criminal offense and that his blood will reveal evidence relevant to that offense, see Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 768-71; U.S. v. Chapel, ___ F.3d ___, slip op. at 5753-54 (9th Cir.'95) (en banc), the absence of such a warrant does not a fortiori establish a violation of the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights.

    The Supreme Court has noted repeatedly that the drawing of blood constitutes only a minimally intrusive search. Skinner, 489 U.S. at 625 (blood tests do not 'infringe significant privacy interests'); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 62 ('85) (not 'an unduly extensive imposition'); Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 771 ('commonplace'); Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 36 ('57) ('routine' and 'would not be considered offensive by even the most delicate').

    'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy inte

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Part of the Bill of Rights.

    The BoR was required to get all the states to ratify the constitution. The states wanted to protect people from the searches and seizure (taking people and property) that the King of Englabd had done to the colonists.

    It is seen today in the form of Search Warrant and resaonalbe cause. In the first case a judge (not the police) must decide if the police have enough evidence to justify entry to person's home to search for evidence. In the latter, in a dangerous or urgetn situtation, the court will throw out a charge if the officer dosent have a good reason to searhc property. Foe example you are pulled over for weaving, the officer cannot check the locked trunk of your car unless he has a good reason. (He hears screams from it.)

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It guards against unreasonable search and seizures. It prevents the government and police officers from violating your home without a sufficient amount of evidence.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    Obamanation is erroding all your const?tutional Rights away? Is he npot in Breach of his Oath to place of labor? human beings will wakeful on your doorways being kicked in by making use of making use of Foriegn Troops who're education on your soil? Your weapons eradicated? that's for the weapons registered in spite of the shown fact that what of the weapons that are no longer? Criminals would be left protecting weapons now this would desire to fairly artwork eh? Whils you have been celebrating Christmas Eve whilst he signed off NDAA that would desire to have warned you? yet human beings take place to be asleep or in a Trance? Then now he tried speedy & furious to get on the 2d? What a Sham this became into Eric Holder would desire to be in penal complex and his Brother in palms Obama will would desire to be with him? they are the two as to blame as another? Birds of a feather flock at the same time furnish them sufficient Rope they sometimes basically ought to hold themselves eh? Banksters Rob us all with impunity Obama Slaps Jammie Dimond on the back he walks after claiming the 5th its concerning to the single replace no longer under attack eh? confidently united statesa. will unsleeping to what they Plot and Plan for if now no longer we can witness how the reliable fall as Rome the writing is on the Wall! we desire propper rules to look after us from those Traitors has he ever placed up a bonified Birthcertificate? Liars and traitors are as against interest quicker they are eradicated the better.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.