Fourth Amendment, Policies, and Society
Historical Foundations of the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment was designed to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. This legislative measure had several serious justifications, which led to its implementation and subsequent extension to all law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” (“Amdt4.2 Historical background on Fourth Amendment,” n.d., para. 1). Therefore, this brought significant changes to the way government agencies function and provided security for the residents of the state.
According to the United States Constitution, unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials are prohibited without a warrant or probable cause. The Fourth Amendment was adopted into the Constitution of the United States of America in 1791 (Lieberfeld & Richards, 2023). Supporters of this legislative initiative thought that the right of individuals to be free from interference with private property is inalienable and fundamental. Before the constitutional amendment’s introduction, wrist assistance had a widespread presence in the country, allowing government representatives to enter personal territory without permission. This lawlessness on the part of the government contributed to the cultivation of discontent that led to the American Revolution and the formation of the US Constitution.
Thus, the Fourth Constitutional Amendment became a legislative initiative that prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures of private territory. It points out that for this, it is necessary to have specific material pieces of evidence based on which a specialized warrant is issued. Its implementation has become a solution to many problems and addressed numerous issues that arose during the historical development of society regarding law enforcement activities.
Problems Addressed by the Fourth Amendment
One of the main aspects that emerged after the introduction of the Fourth Constitutional Amendment regarding the solution of historical problems is the expansion of the use of warrants. If earlier individuals could approach private property by decree from above, after making changes, they were obliged to provide material justifications first to make such an invasion. After considering the reasons provided, they issued warrants that had to be announced for the inspection of the territory under suspicion.
The second problem, which was solved with the help of the Fourth Constitutional Amendment, is the issue of assistance. In some respects, this phenomenon resembles the modern warrants that authorities’ representatives currently receive. Thus, the “writs of assistance” represented the search permits given to officials to search any location at any time. This implementation on private property without the owner’s permission led to multiple misdemeanors on the part of government officials. Many individuals faced physical violence and harassment, which ceased with the introduction of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Application of the Fourth Amendment in Law Enforcement
When faced with a situation where the preservation of substantial evidence is in danger of destruction due to the need to obtain a warrant, I would not take action without obtaining the necessary permission. This is because a no-knock warrant can be implemented only if there is confidence that the suspect in the room has a weapon and poses a danger. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures (Harr et al., 2018). Hence, in this case, I would first take action to announce my presence to the suspected person.
State v. Miskell
Moreover, there is an example of a trial that is considered to be similar. The 1999 State v. Miskell case provides a case where a police officer, without announcement, entered the property of a suspect who, according to informants, was selling prohibited substances. It is noted that “the officers had no information creating an exigent circumstance before executing the search warrant” (“State v. Miskell,” n.d., para. 27). That is, even with a no-knock warrant, the forces representative had no evidence of an armed threat from the suspect. Thus, the case of State v. Miskell may be applied to the alleged situation under investigation, emphasizing that a warrant must be requested and the actions of the police must comply with the rules of the Fourth Amendment.
If the warrant was requested, but upon arrival, I see that the drugs are in plain view near the front door, out of reach of any occupants, I will not ignore this information. This is because a no-knock warrant can only be implemented if there is reasonable evidence that an individual inside the apartment poses a threat to a police officer or can destroy evidence.
Senegal v. Moses
Confirmation of the need for evidence was evident in the case of Senegal v. Moses (2018)Moses (2018), where the police, without substantial justification and based on uncorroborated and unreliable sources, entered the private territory of the accused (“Senegal v. Moses,” 2018). The court ruled that the actions of the force’s representatives regarding the no-knock warrant were illegal. However, in this case, the evidence is out of reach for the suspect, necessitating compliance with the knock-and-announce requirement.
Ensuring Fourth Amendment Compliance in Arrests
When faced with a workplace practice assignment that involves stopping a vehicle for a hidden purpose to check for alcohol consumption and make a DUI arrest, I would look to the legislative branch and judicial branch for guidance. This is because such an initiative misinterprets the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is noted that “the Supreme Court has long recognized that the Fourth Amendment allows a police officer to search a residence without a warrant if she obtains the consent of an occupant” (“Fourth Amendment—Search and Season,” 2018, p. 241).
However, from a legal and judicial perspective, in the case under consideration, an agreement on inspecting a private territory is not achieved, as the initial arrest is made for a traffic infraction. This violation does not imply searching the car or checking the driver for alcohol intoxication. Thus, the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unlawful search and seizure, is violated.
Moreover, the law does not allow representatives to stop a vehicle based on traffic infractions to conduct a DUI arrest. The legislation states that an officer “may stop and detain a person for a traffic violation for investigation reasonably related to the traffic violation, identification and issuance of citation” (“ORS 810.410 arrest and citation,” n.d., para. 6). Therefore, the suggested modifications to the procedure of detaining someone for a traffic violation to test for alcohol use and conduct a DUI arrest are not consistent with the law.
References
Amdt4.2 Historical background on Fourth Amendment. (n.d.). Constitution annotated. Web.
Fourth Amendment—Search and seizure—Conflicted consent when the objecting tenant is absent— Fernandez v. California. (2014). Harvard Law Review, 128(1), 241–250.
Harr, J. S., Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Kingsbury, J. (2018). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system (7th ed.). Cengage.
Lieberfeld, J., & Richards, N. M. (2023). Fourth Amendment notice in the cloud. Boston University Law Review, Forthcoming. Web.
ORS 810.410 arrest and citation. (n.d.). Oregon laws. Web.
Senegal v. Moses. (2018). HeinOnline. Web.
State v. Miskell. (1999). HeinOnline. Web.