Introduction
The relationship between the government and its citizens is critical for peaceful coexistence in a nation. In America, the Bill of Rights provides a framework on which the conduct of the United States government and its citizens are evaluated. America’s Bill of Rights contains the first ten constitutional amendments aimed at describing Americans’ civil rights and privileges, which include the freedom of expression, association, and religion (Monk, 2018). The power bestowed upon the government for the due process of the law is clearly indicated and the authority given to the citizens of the States. The Bill of Rights specifies that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (Monk, 2018, pp. 2). The rights to privacy and protection of personal property are described in the Fourth Amendment. This paper elaborates on the provisions of the Fourth Amendment, tracing it from the historical background to the present and future implications on America’s justice system.
Historical Background
It is possible that few sections in the Bill of Rights arose as directly from the colonial experience as the Fourth Amendment. It codified a prohibition on the use of habeas corpus and so embodied a safeguard against the use of such writs (Futó, 2019). However, even if the insistence on the right to be free from arbitrary, illegal searches as a constitutional right was expressed afterward. As a result of an experience in the colonies, there was a wealth of English material to draw on. As the case of Saman’s Case in 1603 revealed, the phrase “every man’s house is his castle” was a widely held proverb in England (Futó, 2019, pp. 4). Although Saman’s Case was a civil case involving the execution of a court order, it established the house owner’s right to defend his home against illegal entry by anyone.
However, it acknowledged the power of the fitting officers to force entry without notification to arrest or pursue the King’s operation. For example, Entick v. Carrington was one of a series of civil proceedings against state police who stormed several residences related to John Wilkes’ polemical pamphlets challenging government policy and the King himself (Futó, 2019). An acquaintance of Wilkes filed a lawsuit against the company after agents violently broke into his home, smashed into secured desks and containers, and took a large number of printed charts, brochures, and other materials. In a sweeping opinion, the courts ruled the warrant and the conduct it approved to be subversive of all of society’s comforts (Futó, 2019). The approval of a warrant for the confiscation of all of a user’s papers instead of only those purported to be relevant to the investigation was deemed contrary to the sensibility of English law.
The Enactment Process
When the provision that would become the Fourth Amendment was being debated in Congress, some minor changes were made to the language of the provision. It is possible that these changes had a greater impact on the understanding of the relationship between the two clauses than was originally thought. Madison’s newly released version was made available to protect persons, their homes, their documents, and other property from any and all unlawful search and seizure (Minchin, 2021). Warrants given without probable cause, backed by oath, or which do not specifically describe the areas to be searched, people, or property to be seized, must be supported by specific language in the warrant. The section was remarkably similar to the presented version as described by the committee, with an incidental omission fixed on the floor (Minchin, 2021). In some way, the failed amendment was put into the phrase before it was passed by the House, and the language of the approved constitutional clause is similar to the rejected amendment.
The Meaning and Provisions of the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment was initially intended to protect each man’s home from unjustified searches and seizures of his property by the government, and it still does. It protects against arbitrary arrests and serves as the foundation for the legislation governing search orders, stop-and-frisk, impromptu safety checks, phone taps, and other monitoring forms (Ormerod & Trautman, 2017). The 4th amendment states that there shall be no violation of the people’s right to be protected in their persons, residences, documents, and property against unlawful search and seizure (Ormerod & Trautman, 2017). According to this provision, no writ shall be issued except upon probable cause, endorsed by oath or affirmation, and specifically explaining the area to be investigated and the individuals or items to be seized.
The Two Clauses
The Fourth Amendment is comprised of two fundamental clauses. One examines the reasonableness of a search and seizure, while the other examines the validity of search and seizure warrants. According to Hutchinson (2021), a seizure is only legal if it allows law enforcement to carry out its mission successfully. What can occur during a lawful seizure is governed by the concept of reasonableness. There are two fundamental considerations for determining whether a seizure is reasonable: it must be reasonable in both its extent and duration, and it must be reasonable in its timing (Hutchinson, 2021). Traffic stops are an example of this type of situation. The goal of the seizure would be to rectify the traffic infraction that had occurred earlier.
This means that in order to fulfill the reasonableness element of the test, the stop must be directly related to correcting the traffic offense. The search would be considered outside the scope of the stop’s original purpose, rendering it unreasonable unless the investigator had probable cause to support the secondary investigation, which would be the case on most occasions (Hutchinson, 2021). The same can be said for the duration prong of the test; without reasonable suspicion to justify extending the stop beyond what was necessary to address the traffic violation, the stop could not be extended beyond what was necessary to address the traffic violation. The second scope entails the availability of a writ that is only issued for valid reasons.
Regarding the link between the two clauses, two schools of thought emerge. One school of thought holds that the two clauses are separate, while another holds that the latter clause aids in the explanation of the former. It is not apparent which interpretation is right at this time. Furthermore, the nature of law enforcement today is vastly different from that of the time in which the American constitution founders lived. During that time period, there were no structured police departments that were comparable in any way to those that exist now (Futó, 2019). Today’s law enforcement officers, on the other hand, appear to have vast inherent jurisdiction to search and take the property, as shown by Minchin (2021). These powers are not often subject to either legal or regulatory requirements oversight, and common-law constraints are frequently ill-defined and ineffective in their application.
Impacts of the Fourth Amendment
As with every constitutional amendment, the Fourth Amendment has significant implications on U.S. citizens’ conduct and the government’s authority. It is worth noting that this law affects the basic rights of citizens in regard to property ownership, intrusion, and confiscation. Although the law was meant to protect citizens against unlawful investigations which may result in arrests, it has serious implications on personal and national security. The American justice system is limited in its operation based on this aw. In addition, business operations and immigration departments have been affected in one way or another by the Fourth Amendment.
Implications on the Justice System
The justice department has been responsible for ensuring the safety of the American people by investigating, prosecuting, and charging offenders. In many ways, the Fourth Amendment interferes with searches, limiting evidence and consequently affecting justice. According to Kahn-Fogel (2019), the Fourth Amendment implies that evidence collected in an unlawful search may be dismissed from a case, even if it points directly to a crime. This point in itself implies that the Fourth Amendment may, in essence, facilitate criminal activities since it is based primarily on the process used to search and acquire evidence.
Since the Fourth Amendment came into effect, the justice system is required to abide by the set laws, and in cases where probable cause is not apparent, some criminal activities may be committed without being detected. In essence, the Fourth Amendment seems to have given citizens more freedom and limited the operations of the justice department with respect to investigations and arrests. Ravenell and Ross III (2019) argue that the probable cause concept has been contested in many cases, adding that the Fourth Amendment may have created more controversies in the justice and law enforcement departments. The high number of cases pertaining to unlawful searches and evidence gathering has further limited the law enforcement processes in ensuring the security of all citizens.
Implications to the Immigration Department
One of the crucial roles of a government is to secure its borders, which is mainly done through lawful searches. However, Newton (2016) argues that while the government retains a vested interest in border control enforcement, recent developments along the Southwestern region have accelerated the state’s intrusion into individuals’ privacy. While investigations at the border are rational in and of themselves, searches and confiscations within the border zone should be re-evaluated as a result of recent developments. Hutchinson (2021) adds that an assessment of the reasonableness of increased border security measures is required as a result of these developments.
The rights to privacy of immigrants close to the border are minimal because agents can employ regular patrols to make stops basically without suspicion. Although roving patrols are required by law to have reasonable suspicion, the criteria for meeting this requirement are unclear (Newton, 2016). By establishing reasonable suspicion based on stereotypical traits of immigrants, law enforcement agencies, such as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), can conduct searches and seizures of foreigners without raising any suspicion.
In locations with large numbers of minority groups, these lesser standards infringe on privacy at a particularly high incidence. The population of Hispanics is concentrated primarily around the southwest border. In Texas, for example, 39.1% of the population is foreign-born, compared to 42.6 percent of the white population (Hutchinson, 2021). CPB intrudes on the privacy of a large number of people because the 100 mile-long border zone encompasses the most Hispanic-dense portions of the United States and includes numerous major urban areas (Hutchinson, 2021). Although CBP is allowed to employ racial identifiers in determining reasonable suspicion, this criterion increases the government’s infringement into people’s privacy, especially non-citizens and residents of foreign descent.
Implications on Business Activities
The provisions of the Fourth Amendment apply to individuals and their businesses. Therefore, businesses are protected from unlawful searches and are only subject to investigation following a probable cause. The Fourth Amendment basically relates to criminal cases, but it can also have an impact on the workplace in certain circumstances (Obasogie & Newman, 2017). Before conducting drug testing, performing credit checks, or searching workers’ desks or devices, company leaders must be aware of their employees’ privileges under the Fourth Amendment (Bellin, 2019). Although the government has a vested interest in all business activities within the country, any searches must be guided by the Fourth Amendment.
Employees in the public sector have considerably more protection from workplace raids than their counterparts in the private sector, which should be noted by business owners and managers. This is due to the fact that the behavior of their bosses is considered a state action and is, therefore, therefore subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights (Monk, 2018). Obasogie and Newman (2017), indicate that public workers are protected under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution from unlawful search and seizure, defined as checks and confiscations. This principle has been attributed to increased interference with private businesses within the U.S. while public corporations may be used to perpetuate unlawful activities.
The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Era
Today, courts are grappling with how and where the Fourth Amendment may be applicable to data generated by technology such as mobile phones, automobiles, and smart gadgets, and society is at jurisprudential crossroads. These innovations, relied on for better communication, navigation, and entertainment, build extensive documentation on private lives, possibly disclosing not only locations but also political beliefs, commercial choices, associations, and more (Rozenshtein, 2021). The volume of data has resulted in extremely useful to law enforcement for policing, but much of it is presently accessible without a warrant.
Recent developments reveal that the Fourth Amendment differences are being eroded by technology. In the mid-20th century, a number of cases set the parameters of what is judged reasonable, depending on who possessed the knowledge at the time (Rozenshtein, 2021). Data held by individuals who generated it is protected to a greater extent, but data stored by other parties, such as firms with whom one enters into a contract, is protected to a lesser extent (Rozenshtein, 2021). However, technological advancements have produced an imbalance. The world has been transformed by digital reliance, which has had an impact on communication channels.
Limitations of the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment has been in effect for decades, but its application in the digital era seems limited. In light of new and developing technologies, this article proposes that four Fourth Amendment categorizations are dissolving: personal vs. public area; personal vs. third-party data; material vs. non-content; and local vs. international (Brown & Buckler, 2017). The lines between things are blurring. Information that was formerly guarded is no longer safeguarded. Because the classifications themselves fail to satisfy fundamental privacy concerns, fewer protections are provided from the start. Simultaneously, the law is blinded to the underlying privacy interests at risk because of the lack of use constraints in the Fourth Amendment doctrine.
Although serious significant strides into confidentiality occur with the gathering of data, extensive collection, and analysis of the data, reasonable concerns have been raised. Brown and Buckler (2017) note that procedures that fail to appreciate any legitimate expectation of privacy in the gathering of evidence at the outset are insufficient to recognize interests that appear. Furthermore, as the collecting and processing of data require fewer and fewer resources, limits that once served as a major barrier to privacy protection are dissolving (Brown & Buckler, 2017). The way the digital world interacts with the law is gradually encroaching on privacy rights. If nothing is done to reverse the trend, privacy concerns will continue to dwindle, with serious long-term consequences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Fourth Amendment protects American citizens against unlawful searches and seizures. It specifies the rights of citizens and the powers granted to the U.S. law enforcement agencies. Although this amendment has been applied in many cases, the digital era has revealed that serious considerations are needed to ensure that this law remains relevant. In addition, the immigration and justice departments have displayed partial implementation of the law, calling for careful consideration of its implications on American society.
References
Bellin, J. (2019). Fourth Amendment textualism. SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
Brown, B., & Buckler, K. (2017). Pondering personal privacy: a pragmatic approach to the Fourth Amendment protection of privacy in the information age. Contemporary Justice Review, 20(2), 227-254. Web.
Futó, G. (2019). Theories of the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Politické Vedy, 229-246. Web.
Hutchinson, I. (2021). On the fringes of the Fourth Amendment: Changing reasonableness at the border. Dartmouth Law Journal, 17(1), 188-246. Web.
Kahn-Fogel, N. (2019). Property, Privacy, and Justice Gorsuch’s Expansive Fourth Amendment Originalism. SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
Minchin, G. (2021). The incredible shrinking Fourth Amendment —the ongoing erosion of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Beijing Law Review, 12(03), 813-874. Web.
Monk, L. R. (2018). The Bill of Rights: A user’s guide. Hachette Books.
Newton, B. (2016). The real-world Fourth Amendment. SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
Obasogie, O. K., & Newman, Z. (2017). The futile Fourth Amendment: Understanding police excessive force doctrine through an empirical assessment of Graham v. Connor. Northwestern University Law Review, 112, 1465. Web.
Ormerod, P. C., & Trautman, L. J. (2017). A descriptive analysis of the Fourth Amendment and the third-party doctrine in the digital age. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 28 (73). Web.
Ravenell, T., & Ross III, R. (2019). Civil justice from criminal courts? The role of issue preclusion in § 1983 Fourth Amendment probable cause claims. SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
Rozenshtein, A. (2021). Cost-benefit analysis and the digital Fourth Amendment. Criminal Justice Ethics, 40(1), 75-83. Web.