4th Amendment Pros And Cons

1202 Words 5 Pages
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment is meant to protect the citizen from unreasonable seizures and searches without a warrant. This includes having their homes, persons, and items in their homes searched by police as well as other officials. Following the Amendment, if a police officer suspects that a citizen has is perpetrating or is taking part in a crime, the office has first to obtain a warrant legally.
The warrant has to be granted by a judge before the offer can enter the property of the suspect as he or she searches for evidence. This amendment has been observed to have both negative and negative impact on law enforcement. For the citizens, it seems to be positive in the sense that it protects their privacy by preventing law enforcement
…show more content…
If a police officer searches a citizen or his staff for evidence, the search has to be reasonable, and if the officer has a warrant, then the search has to be specific and he or she needs a probable cause. It writing the amendment could not be more straightforward.
However, in practice, its meaning has been a topic of controversy over the years. For many years, the courts have been observed to dramatically muddied the Fourth Amendment meaning. This has not been as bad as what has been witnessed with the Fifth Amendment but bad enough to erode the protection provided by the Amendment severely against unreasonable seizures and searches.
The courts certainly are not out to try and undermine this Amendment but there has been a long list of endless discrete errors, gradually eroding away what is meant to count as an ‘unreasonable” search and what should be done about it. Consequently, legal types have over the years been complaining that the courts are eroding the Fourth Amendment
…show more content…
In any given situation, there is a line the officers cannot cross. Situations keep on varying, and the rules are not always as clear as they are supposed to be. If the officers themselves can be punished for crossing the line inadvertently, then they will be forced to avoid getting anywhere close to it. People who are guilty who the society is out to punish in such a situation get away with it.
This is not right as a rule meant to deter law enforcer conduct is not what the society wants. However, instead, the Exclusionary Rules lets the law enforcers go right up to this line, without any repercussions fears in case they cross it by mistake. All the rule fails to take away the evidence they obtain from crossing the line in such a situation. It merely excludes what the officers should not have done in the first place.
The rule has no deterrent effect on the officers personally and only acts as an incentive in collecting evidence lawfully when they want to make sure that its used during the trial. It this case, the lawful evidence appears to be maximized while the unlawful evidence, on the other hand, is

Related Documents