Humanities IV
The Fourth Amendment Mini Project
The Fourth Amendment: Why it was Created and its Exceptions
Why the Fourth Amendment?
The Fourth Amendment enforces the notion that U.S. citizens are protected from the government in cases of unreasonable searches and seizures of property. It also protects citizens against, “arbitrary arrests and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and privacy to law.” (Fourth, Legal Institute).
Why are there Exceptions to the Fourth Amendment?
It was necessary that the Court was able to find a balance between the practical realities of daily police work and obtaining the rights granted to U.S. citizens by the Constitution. By always requiring police officers to take the time to complete a warrant could often result in destruction of evidence or disappearances of suspects.
Exceptions to Warrant Requirements: Fourth Amendment
1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest: If somebody is lawfully arrested, anything that is on or within the reach (“wingspan”) of the person being detained is legal for police officers to search.
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752
2. Plain View Exception: If an officer can see illegal paraphernalia from a legitimate location in which evidence can be viewed in plain sight, they are allowed to seize the evidence without a warrant. As long as the police officer had prior justification for an intrusion, anything seized can be used against the defendant in a trial.
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 110
3. Consent: If a suspect gives consent for search or seizure, no warrant is required and anything found can be used against the detainee. Also, if somebody that is not the suspect but that the officer believes has significant authority (i.e. a spouse) gives consent, the officer is not violating the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights by carrying out actions of search or seizure.
Rodriguez v. Illinois, 497 U.S. 177
4. Terry Stop (Stop & Frisk): Officers of peace can stop a suspect at any time so long as there is reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, or the chance of potential danger. “Reasonable suspicion” may be applied when, “a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed. ” (Reasonable, Legal Institute). In cases of a Terry stop, “reasonable suspicion” is something beyond mere suspicion, but is less than the level required for probable cause.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
5. Automobile Exception: Because the risk of loss of the instrumentalities of a crime is so probable in a mobile vehicle, a police officer is not required to have a permit for reason of preventing the suspect from getting rid of the paraphernalia. If an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle would potentially be out of their dictation before a warrant could be issued. The term “automobile exception” does not limit the rule to cars. Any vehicle including boats are subject to the exception.
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132
6. Emergencies/Hot Pursuit: Because evidence can be easily moved or destroyed before a warrant is created, it may be seized in the case of an emergency or hot pursuit without the jurisdiction of a warrant. In the event that police officers are pursuing a suspect and the suspect enters a personal property, no warrant is required for police to enter the property; even if the suspect and the property owner have no connection.
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294
7. Felony Arrest: If an officer arrests a suspect in a public place for a felony, it is not required that he/she must receive a warrant so long as the officer possesses probable cause that the suspect committed the crime. In most cases, felony arrests that are not open to the public are not mandated without a warrant unless it falls within justification of a hot pursuit.
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294
8. Good Faith Exception: Though it does not completely allow a police officer to conduct a search, seizure, or arrest without a warrant, if an officer that believes that they are acting in “good faith” may be excused by the court in the incident that they acted unlawfully. It is a way of protecting the officer against the strict rules of the Fourth Amendment rulings.
Works Cited:
"Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement." Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement. National Paralegal, n.d. Web. 31 Aug. 2014.
"Fourth Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 30 Aug. 2014.
"Horton v. California | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. Bloomberg Law, n.d. Web. 01 Sept. 2014.
"Hot Pursuit." TheFreeDictionary.com. Legal Dictionary, n.d. Web. 01 Sept. 2014.
"Reasonable Suspicion." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
"The Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness Requirement"" FindLaw. FindLaw, n.d. Web. 01 Sept. 2014.
Why the Fourth Amendment?
The Fourth Amendment enforces the notion that U.S. citizens are protected from the government in cases of unreasonable searches and seizures of property. It also protects citizens against, “arbitrary arrests and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and privacy to law.” (Fourth, Legal Institute).
Why are there Exceptions to the Fourth Amendment?
It was necessary that the Court was able to find a balance between the practical realities of daily police work and obtaining the rights granted to U.S. citizens by the Constitution. By always requiring police officers to take the time to complete a warrant could often result in destruction of evidence or disappearances of suspects.
Exceptions to Warrant Requirements: Fourth Amendment
1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest: If somebody is lawfully arrested, anything that is on or within the reach (“wingspan”) of the person being detained is legal for police officers to search.
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752
2. Plain View Exception: If an officer can see illegal paraphernalia from a legitimate location in which evidence can be viewed in plain sight, they are allowed to seize the evidence without a warrant. As long as the police officer had prior justification for an intrusion, anything seized can be used against the defendant in a trial.
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 110
3. Consent: If a suspect gives consent for search or seizure, no warrant is required and anything found can be used against the detainee. Also, if somebody that is not the suspect but that the officer believes has significant authority (i.e. a spouse) gives consent, the officer is not violating the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights by carrying out actions of search or seizure.
Rodriguez v. Illinois, 497 U.S. 177
4. Terry Stop (Stop & Frisk): Officers of peace can stop a suspect at any time so long as there is reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, or the chance of potential danger. “Reasonable suspicion” may be applied when, “a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed. ” (Reasonable, Legal Institute). In cases of a Terry stop, “reasonable suspicion” is something beyond mere suspicion, but is less than the level required for probable cause.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
5. Automobile Exception: Because the risk of loss of the instrumentalities of a crime is so probable in a mobile vehicle, a police officer is not required to have a permit for reason of preventing the suspect from getting rid of the paraphernalia. If an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle would potentially be out of their dictation before a warrant could be issued. The term “automobile exception” does not limit the rule to cars. Any vehicle including boats are subject to the exception.
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132
6. Emergencies/Hot Pursuit: Because evidence can be easily moved or destroyed before a warrant is created, it may be seized in the case of an emergency or hot pursuit without the jurisdiction of a warrant. In the event that police officers are pursuing a suspect and the suspect enters a personal property, no warrant is required for police to enter the property; even if the suspect and the property owner have no connection.
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294
7. Felony Arrest: If an officer arrests a suspect in a public place for a felony, it is not required that he/she must receive a warrant so long as the officer possesses probable cause that the suspect committed the crime. In most cases, felony arrests that are not open to the public are not mandated without a warrant unless it falls within justification of a hot pursuit.
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294
8. Good Faith Exception: Though it does not completely allow a police officer to conduct a search, seizure, or arrest without a warrant, if an officer that believes that they are acting in “good faith” may be excused by the court in the incident that they acted unlawfully. It is a way of protecting the officer against the strict rules of the Fourth Amendment rulings.
Works Cited:
"Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement." Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement. National Paralegal, n.d. Web. 31 Aug. 2014.
"Fourth Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 30 Aug. 2014.
"Horton v. California | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. Bloomberg Law, n.d. Web. 01 Sept. 2014.
"Hot Pursuit." TheFreeDictionary.com. Legal Dictionary, n.d. Web. 01 Sept. 2014.
"Reasonable Suspicion." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
"The Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness Requirement"" FindLaw. FindLaw, n.d. Web. 01 Sept. 2014.
Project Reflection
Knowing your rights is invaluable in today's day and age. The purpose of the mini-project was to inform us of our rights when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, and how we can prevent becoming victims of our own ignorance. By learning the steps that the government has taken to grant us privacy, yet still create a safe society, we got a deeper understanding of what kinds of exceptions are made to the Fourth Amendment and why.
I chose to represent the aspect of what kinds of exceptions are created to the ruling of the Fourth Amendment. I found this particular piece of the project interesting because I had never understood why our 'Constitutional Rights' could be violated. I had been under the impression that the words on the Constitution were set in stone and anybody going against them was acting in illegal ways. By looking deeper into the exceptions, it helped me understand when and why our basic rights can be violated. I now have a more appreciative sense of the steps that our government takes in attempts to balance our rights and our safety.
If I were to redo this project, I would have chosen to research loopholes to the exceptions that have already been made. It would be interesting to learn how much somebody could push the limit of protecting their rights both in everyday situations and in a courtroom. By researching this subject, I not only would have learned about loopholes, but I would have had the chance to look into legal proceedings in depth.
Knowing your rights is invaluable in today's day and age. The purpose of the mini-project was to inform us of our rights when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, and how we can prevent becoming victims of our own ignorance. By learning the steps that the government has taken to grant us privacy, yet still create a safe society, we got a deeper understanding of what kinds of exceptions are made to the Fourth Amendment and why.
I chose to represent the aspect of what kinds of exceptions are created to the ruling of the Fourth Amendment. I found this particular piece of the project interesting because I had never understood why our 'Constitutional Rights' could be violated. I had been under the impression that the words on the Constitution were set in stone and anybody going against them was acting in illegal ways. By looking deeper into the exceptions, it helped me understand when and why our basic rights can be violated. I now have a more appreciative sense of the steps that our government takes in attempts to balance our rights and our safety.
If I were to redo this project, I would have chosen to research loopholes to the exceptions that have already been made. It would be interesting to learn how much somebody could push the limit of protecting their rights both in everyday situations and in a courtroom. By researching this subject, I not only would have learned about loopholes, but I would have had the chance to look into legal proceedings in depth.
Free Speech Forum
In this project, we learned about the rights embedded in the Constitution, but mainly focused on the First Amendment. The essential question of the Free Speech Forum was, "Why is the first amendment important for a democracy?" In efforts to tackle this question, we picked a topic of our choosing that challenged free speech limits, and analyzed why that particular speech is important to a Democracy.
Essential Question: Why is the first amendment important for a democracy.
Essential Question: Why is the first amendment important for a democracy.
The picture above is my art piece for the FSF project. It depicts a mouth behind bars, yet signifies that words, no matter how vulgar, can still be heard beyond limitations put on them.
First Amendment Video Competition
|
The First Amendment Video Competition was a project that gave all of the AHS seniors a chance to create a video based on the First Amendment, and then use social media to get their video out to the public. The winners of the competition are determined by the amount of views and likes a group's video receives.
I was working on a video with two of my classmates, and we decided to take a multimedia angle rather than acting. We wanted to focus on the hacktivist group Anonymous, and explain how their work keeps the First Amendment thriving. |