|
|
|
||||||
|
The 4th AmendmentThe 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It deals with protecting people from the searching of their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants. The 4th Amendment reads like this:"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."
4th Amendment RightsThe 4th Amendment requires that in order for a government official, such as a police officer, to search a person's home, business, papers, bank accounts, computer or other personal items, in most cases, he must obtain a search warrant signed by the proper authority, which usually means by a judge.
The judge then reviews the information and if he also believes that the information the officer has submitted shows probable cause, he will issue the warrant. In order for the warrant to be good, it must identify the place and the particular items or persons that are to be seized if they are found. A warrant is not a general order that can be used to search for anything, anywhere the officer wants. It is very specific about what is being looked for and where the officer can look for it. History of the 4th Amendment
In this case, it was determined that subjects of the kingdom had the right to be protected from searches and seizures that were unlawfully conducted, even if they were conducted by the king's representatives. The case also recognized that lawfully conducted searches and seizures were acceptable. This case established a precedent that has remained a part of English law ever since. The most famous English case dealing with the right to freedom from illegal search and seizure is called Entick vs. Carrington, 1765. In this case, royal representatives had broken into the private home of John Entick in search of material that was critical of the king and his policies. In the process, they broke into locked boxes and desks and confiscated many papers, charts, pamphlets, etc. The officers were acting on the orders of Lord Halifax. During the trial, Entick charged that the entire search and seizure had been unlawfully conducted, and the Court agreed. The Court said that Lord Halifax had no standing to issue the order to search the premises, that probable cause that a crime had been committed had not been demonstrated and that the warrant allowed a general confiscation of anything the officers found, not specifying exactly what they were to look for or could seize. In addition, there were no records kept of what the officers seized. This ruling essentially declared that the government was not allowed to do anything that was not specified by law. It required the search and seizure be carried out according to the law. It also established that the right to be able to protect one's private property was an important right to be safeguarded by the government. In his ruling, Lord Camden, the Chief Justice made this famous statement: "The great end, for which men
entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all
instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public
law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property
is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, executions,
forfeitures, taxes etc are all of this description; wherein every man
by common consent gives up that right, for the sake of justice and the
general good. By the laws of England, every invasion of private
property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot
upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action,
though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in
trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the
grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is
bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has
empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges,
who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be
maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of
common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the
books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must
have judgment."
In 1886, in a case called Boyd vs. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States referred to Entick vs. Carrington as a ''great judgment,'' ''one of the landmarks of English liberty,'' and ''one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution.'' This established the Entick decision as a guide to understanding what the Founding Fathers meant concerning search and seizure laws when they wrote the 4th Amendment. Colonial History of the 4th AmendmentThe British government generally looked at the American colonies as a money making enterprise. Consequently, they passed many revenue collection bills aimed at generating as much money from the colonists as possible. The colonists naturally resented this and engaged in substantial smuggling operations in order to get around the customs taxes imposed by the British government.In response, Parliament and the King began to use "writs of assistance," legal search warrants that were very broad and general in their scope. Customs agents could obtain a writ of assistance to search any property they believed might contain contraband goods. They could enter someone's property with no notice and without any reason given. Tax collectors could interrogate anyone about their use of customed goods and require the cooperation of any citizen. Searches and seizures of private property based on very general warrants became an epidemic in colonial America. In response to this, the Massachusetts legislature passed search and seizure laws in 1756 outlawing the use of general warrants. This created a great deal of friction between the Royal Governor and the people of Massachusetts until the death of King George II in 1760. Writs of assistance by law were good until 6 months after the death of the king who issued them. This meant that the Royal Governor had to have new writs of assistance issued by the new king.
James Otis represented these merchants for free. His speech condemning British policies, including writs of assistance and general search warrants, was so powerful and eloquent, that it was heard of throughout the colonies and catapulted him to a place of leadership in the swelling tide of disillusionment toward Great Britain. Future President, John Adams, who was 25 at the time, was sitting in the courtroom and heard Otis' famous speech that day. Later he said: "The child independence was then
and there born, every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to
take arms against writs of assistance."
He viewed Otis' speech "as the spark in which originated the American Revolution." Later, in 1776, George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was a document on which Thomas Jefferson relied heavily when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, included prohibitions against general warrants that did not specify probable cause or exactly what was to be searched for. The passage of the Virginia Declaration of Rights dealing with general warrants reads like this: "That general warrants, whereby
any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places
without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons
not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported
by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted."
You can read the Virginia Declaration of Rights here. You can read the Declaration of Independence here. On June 8, 1789, James Madison proposed to the First Congress twenty amendments to be added to the Constitution. One of these amendments, that dealt with search and seizure laws, became what we know as the 4th Amendment. Congress approved twelve amendments on September 25, 1789. The First Ten Amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, became law on December 15, 1791. You can read more about the History of the Bill of Rights here. 4th Amendment in everyday lifeThe 4th Amendment only applied originally to the federal government, but through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has now applied all parts of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments as well. The 4th Amendment only provides protection from illegal search and seizure by government officials, not by private citizens. So, if an employer unreasonably searched your possessions at work, the 4th Amendment would not have been violated.There are certain exceptions to the 4th Amendment right to have a properly executed search warrant issued before a search or seizure of private property can be conducted. The Supreme Court has ruled that, for example, a police officer may conduct a pat down search of someone he has observed engaging in suspicious behavior, if he has reasonable suspicion that some crime is being committed. Also, if a police officer observes someone committing a crime, or believes that he has probable cause to suspect someone has committed a crime, he may arrest the person without a warrant. There are a number of other exceptions to the warrant rule: 4th Amendment Rights in CourtIn general, any evidence that is obtained in an illegal search and seizure is not admissible in court by the prosecution in a criminal defendant's trial. This is known as the 4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule because evidence obtained in this manner is excluded from the trial. The Supreme Court established this rule in a case called Weeks vs. United States, 1914. Before that time, any evidence, even if it was gathered in an illegal search and seizure, was admissible in court.There are some exceptions to the 4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule. For example, Grand Juries may use illegally obtained evidence to question witnesses. The method of gathering the evidence can be challenged later if the defendant is charged. Evidence gathered in good faith by an officer can be used in court. This means that if an officer is following the directions of a warrant that is faulty, not realizing that it is faulty, the evidence may be used. Evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure can also be used in the following circumstances: You can read about several interesting and significant Fourth Amendment Court cases here. Thanks for
reading about the 4th Amendment with Revolutionary War and Beyond! If you would like to read about the meanings of each amendment, go to the First Ten Amendments page here. Amendments:Preamble to the Bill of RightsLearn about the 1st Amendment here. Learn about the 2nd Amendment here. Learn about the 3rd Amendment here. Learn about the 4th Amendment here. Learn about the 5th Amendment here. Learn about the 6th Amendment here. Learn about the 7th Amendment here. Learn about the 8th Amendment here. Learn about the 9th Amendment here. Learn about the 10th Amendment here. Read the Bill of Rights here. Return
to Top of 4th Amendment Return to First Ten Amendments History of the Bill of Rights Main Bill of Rights page Revolutionary War and Beyond Home More information about the James Otis picture on this page can be found at the Wichita Art Museum. |
 |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
| ||||||||
