Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Fourth Amendment. 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 ...
Introduction. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizures of our person, our house, our papers, and our effects. In many cases, this amendment governs our interactions with the police. Before the government—including police officers—can search your home or seize your property, it needs a good reason.
The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Constitution that gives the answer. According to the Fourth Amendment, the people have a right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”. This right limits the power of the police to seize and search people, their property, and their homes.
urth Amendment rights are at issue. This lesson will allow students to examine the text and interpretations of the Fourth Amendment to describe key terms and ideas like searches, seizures, and privacy, as well as define some of the key debates about where the Fourth Amendmen. is headed in an age of technology.When can the governmen.
For the third time in recent years, the Supreme Court has decided a case involving the constitutional sniffing powers of police dogs. In a 6-3 decision on Tuesday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her majority opinion that police officers in Nebraska needed a search warrant after they deployed a trained drug-sniffing dog after a traffic stop.
During the subsequent trial, attorneys for Terry and Chilton argued that the weapons were obtained by Officer McFadden illegally via an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. They further argued that the weapons were inadmissible as evidence in the case due to the exclusionary rule. The court rejected the argument ...
The Supreme Court usually considers Fourth Amendment cases starting with a basic question, “Was there a search or a seizure?” If so, the Court must ask whether the search or seizure was reasonable. If not, then the search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment.
Based on recordings of his end of the conversation, Katz was convicted for illegal gambling. Katz argued that the government violated the Fourth Amendment by listening in on his conversation. As public phone booths and electronic communications became more common in American life, the Supreme Court had to determine whether and how to apply a ...
ime it detains (seizes) or searches a person or property. The Fourth Amendment also provides that “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.” The idea is that to avoid the evils of general warrants, each ...
On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Utah v. Strieff, involving the intricacies of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure doctrine, and the accompanying exclusionary rule. In a 5-3 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the evidence obtained from an unlawful police stop would not be excluded from ...