My right to privacy in my home, in my car, and in my emails is one of the most fundamental rights that protect who I am as a person. person. One of the amendments that grant this right is the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The definition of the Fourth Amendment is very simple: it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Or, as the U.S. Constitution says, citizens have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThis right limits the power of the police to seize and search our properties, homes, and information. It requires a warrant issued by a magistrate, judge or Supreme Court official for a law enforcement officer to conduct a search of a person, at their location or in their vehicle. At the time of the American Revolution, the Fourth Amendment was proposed by James Madison in 1789. This amendment grew out of the Revolutionary War and the colonists' struggle against British rule. Its historical roots go back to the English tradition of "my house is my castle", where the authority of the king's officer was limited to entering homes and making arrests. King George introduced the use of 'writs of assistance', worded in a practical manner. These were very broad legal search warrants with little detail. British officers could be issued a “warrant of mutual assistance” to examine any motive they believed might be smuggling. They could gain access to someone's property or home without announcement and for no reason. Officers were authorized to question anyone about their property and to force agreement from anyone. These types of searches and seizures became commonplace in the colonies, but over time the colonists became enraged. The U.S. Congress proposed the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced approval of the amendment. After independence, the Fourth Amendment was interpreted in its very original sense: as a means to prevent the government from collecting or searching a person or their property without a warrant. To avoid an abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment by providing overly broad reasons for a search warrant and allowing lower-ranking officials to issue warrants, the U.S. Constitution requires that a certain level of authority and a legitimate objective are present. The Fourth Amendment states that "no warrant 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 search or seizure must have been authorized by a judge, based on strong preliminary evidence of illegal activity. Although a warrant is theoretically required before police can search, there are acceptable exemptions. A warrantless search is authorized if the purpose of the search follows the officer's reasons to believe that contraband or other evidence can be destroyed or disposed of before a search warrant can be issued. On the other hand, a warrantless search has consequences. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1950s that if the police seized evidence without a warrant, it would be considered an illegal search, and then the evidence would not be admitted in court and even though the accused couldbeing guilty, the court had to let him. walk crime free and ignore illegally obtained evidence. This is called the “exclusionary rule”. The case of Georgia v. Randolph is an example. “Scott Randolph was arrested for drug possession after police found cocaine at his home. Police did not have a warrant to search the house, but Randolph's wife consented to the search. Randolph was also present at the time of the search and objected to the police request. At trial, his attorney argued that the search was unconstitutional due to Randolph's objection, while the prosecution argued that his wife's consent was sufficient. The trial court agreed with the prosecution, but the appeals court and the Georgia Supreme Court both sided with Randolph, holding that a search is unconstitutional if a resident objects, even if another resident consents. No. In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. Justice David Souter, in the majority opinion, compared the reasonableness of such a search to a more informal interaction. Souter wrote: "It is fair to say that a caller standing at the door of a shared premises would have no confidence that an occupant's invitation is a good enough reason to enter whereas another tenant was standing there saying, “stay away.” for good reason, no sane person would enter inside in these conditions. A police search under such circumstances, Souter wrote, would therefore not meet the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. However, there are other exceptions as well, such as requiring officers to follow certain rules even if they obtain a warrant. One of these rules is the “knock and announce” rule. This rule requires police officers to execute a search warrant without immediately entering a person's residence. Instead, he must first knock on that person's door, identify himself and indicate his intention. They also have to wait a certain amount of time before residents let them into their residence. The Supreme Court has ruled that the "knock and announce" rule is part of a judge's hearing in favor of the reasonableness of a search under the Fourth Amendment. This is what the case of Hudson v. Mitchell: “Booker T. Hudson was convicted of drug and gun possession in state court after police found cocaine and a gun in his home. Police had a search warrant, but failed to follow the Fourth Amendment's "knock and announce" rule, which requires officers to wait 20 to 30 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence before entering the home. . The trial judge ruled that the evidence found in the house therefore could not be used, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the decision based on two Michigan Supreme Court cases that created an exception to the suppression of evidence when the evidence in question would inevitably have been found. . No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that it was not necessary to exclude evidence when police violated the “knock and announce” rule. Justice Scalia's opinion reaffirmed the validity of the "knock and announce" rule and the "knock and announce" rule. “exclusionary rule” for evidence obtained by police in most cases of Fourth Amendment violations. However, the majority held that the exclusionary rule could notcannot be invoked for evidence obtained after a knock and announce violation because the interests violated by the violent entry of the police "have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence." Justice Scalia wrote that the "knock and announce" rule was intended to prevent violence, property damage, and invasions of privacy, not to prevent police from conducting a search for which they have a warrant valid. The Court also held that the social costs of the exclusionary rule as applied to the "knock and announce" rule outweighed any possible "deterrence benefit," and that alternative measures such as civil suits and discipline internal police force could adequately deter violations. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. The dissenting members pointed to the Court's long history of upholding the exclusionary rule and questioned whether the precedents cited by the majority support its conclusion. The dissent also expressed doubts about whether knock-and-announce violations could be deterred without excluding evidence obtained during searches. The Fourth Amendment has become a hotly debated topic. After 9/11 and with the "war on terror," the government and media focused on how and where to balance "public safety" with the "rights of the individual" protected by the Fourth Amendment. . In 2014, revelations were made of a massive government spying program targeting almost every American citizen. In recent years, the United States has witnessed an escalation of “stop and frisk” acts by police, often motivated by racial profiling and racial bias. There have been numerous clashes between police and citizens over searches and seizures, in which unarmed civilians have been shot during car searches for refusing to search without a warrant. According to statistics, most of these victims were African-Americans. The issue of government spying on its own citizens "without a warrant" has been a scandal since Edward Snowden, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contractor, leaked and revealed to the American public the extent of the government surveillance program. Under this total surveillance program, using sophisticated algorithms and software technology, the federal government listens to everyone's phone conversations and monitors everyone's social media chats, forcing phone companies to share customer information without their knowledge. , email, telephone conversations, and cloud storage today violate privacy protected by the 18th-century Fourth Amendment. Another problem is the rapid increase in the use of cheap aerial surveillance technologies, such as drones, it is becoming easier to violate our privacy and spy in our daily lives. This technology is so easy to acquire that the government, as well as ordinary people, can use it for nefarious purposes. However, due to the Fourth Amendment, certain regulations now exist, such as requiring a license or permission to film people and property in private spaces. Information, not physical property, is the most valuable resource today. Unlocking one person's phone data can give access to a huge number of people, networks and resources and can also put hundreds or even thousands of them at risk. That.