Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
The Fourth Amendment
Transcript of The Fourth Amendment
Would this amendment be relevant today?
The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures go far beyond an actual police search of your home.
Cell Phone Conversations
"Private" Messages (I.M., iMessage, etc.)
Would it be ratified?
Mapp v. Ohio
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants 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.
What is the fourth amendment?
A law enforcement officer's physical apprehension or "seizure" of a person, by way of a stop or arrest.
Police searches of places and items in which an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy -- his or her person, clothing, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, apartment, hotel room, and place of business.
Rights Granted & Protected
This amendment holds safeguards to a person during searches, and basically prevents unlawfully taken items as evidence against that person in a court of law.
Because of the large amount of terrorist threats throughout the united states, for example 9/11, a person's rights under the fourth amendments will be even more relevant than they had been.
Textbook - Source
1957 - Dollree Mapp
Police searched the house for a bomber
Instead they found: Unlawful Pornographic Material or as the Ohio State Law prohibits: “lewd, lascivious, or obscene material.”
Sentenced to 1-7 years in prison
Mapp based her claim under the 1st amendment - Claiming she has the right to carry the material privately in the comfort of her home
Judge ruled to use the claim of the
Freed post Supreme Court hearing
Evidence obtained illegally by police under the fourth amendment (Exclusionary Rule!)
The answer could go either way
Many people would argue the wrongdoings of the amendment:
For example, through this amendment the government could possibly set free serious criminals - simply because a police officer did not undergo correct protocol by law.
On the other hand - many would also argue
For example, through the fourth amendment the government shows privacy to an individual and proves to exemplify a probable cause to search or seize an individual.
Mentioned in previous slide - Modern rights of privacy.
The answer is unclear, but can go either way.
In some ways it would be better to have the amendment ratified today and in others it would not be beneficial to our society.
Introduced to the Bill of Rights in September of 1789
Ratified by 3/4 of the States in December of 1791
√√The Framers drafted the Fourth Amendment in response to their colonial experience with British officials, whose discretion in collecting revenues for the Crown often went unchecked.
Until the 1760’s, it was not uncommon for a colonist’s home or property to be searched with a simple general warrant by British officials.
In 1754, the Excise Act gave British tax collectors unlimited powers to question colonists regarding their goods subject to customs.
In 1756, a Massachusetts colony endorsed legislation that prohibited the use of the writs of assistance, which created tension between the state and the Royal Governor at the time.
On December 27, 1760 when the colonies received word of King George’s death on October 23rd, a crisis began in Boston.
On February 23, 1761, a five hour hearing was held arguing the use and legality of the writs of assistance.