Lesson 33Lesson 33Lesson 33Lesson 33Danny S, Lauren B, Linnea H,Danny S, Lauren B, Linnea H,

Curtis B, James DCurtis B, James D

What is the purpose of the Fourth Amendment?

• Originally limited only the powers of the federal government, it has been applied to state and local government by its incorporation into the 4th Amendment

• 4th Amendment does not specifically state that it protects the right to privacy.

• The 4th Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from searching or seizing people or their property unless there is probable cause – a good reason for suspecting a person of breaking a law.

What is the purpose of the Fourth Amendment? (cont.)

• If a judge a judge or magistrate agrees there is probable cause to suspect a violation of law, the law enforcement officers is given a warrant – a written document giving permission for a search and seizure.

• The 4th Amendment has been interpreted to allow search and seizures without a warrant under certain circumstances.

• Warrants must specifically describe the place and person or thing to be searched and seized.

What is the history of the Fourth Amendment?

• English common law protected the right to privacy by prohibiting judges from giving law enforcement officials general warrant – that did not describe in detail the places and the person or thing to be searched or seized.

• General Warrants have been referred to as open-ended “hunting licenses” authorizing government officials to search people, their businesses , homes, and property indiscriminately.

What is the history of the Fourth Amendment?

• In 1662 Parliament passed a law that permitted general warrants called writs of assistance.– the writs gave government officials the power to search

for goods that had entered the country in violation

• Today every constitution contains a clause similar to the 4th Amendment

What is the significance of the exclusionary rule?

Most often used to exclude evidence attained from illegal searches and seizures.

Excludes evidence gathered in violation of the 5th amendment and 6th amendment.

Created to discourage law enforcement officers from breaking the law.

In 1961, Supreme court applied it to prosecutions at the state level in the case, Mapp v. Ohio.

Controversies with the 4th

• When are warrants not required?– When police are at the scene of a crime,

robbery, or any type of emergency– Suspects my injury someone or flee

• What is probable cause?– When a police officer arrests someone w/o a

warrant they have to convince a judge there was probable cause

– Evidence that justifies what the officer did

Means of enforcing the 4th

• Law enforcement officers have the power to – Stop and question us – Use force, if necessary, to restrain us – Search our person, home, property, cars,

and garbage cans– Arrest us and put us in jail – Question us while we are in jail

Means of enforcing the 4th

• These powers are easily open to abuse so we have policies that are being used to check the abuse of power by police officers– Departmental Discipline

• Board of officers responsible for investigating crimes where an officer has violated due process of law

– Civilian Review Boards• Similar to department discipline, a local government

appointed board, gives officer convicted a fair hearing

– Civil Suits• Civilians who think their rights have been violated by

officers have the right to sue individual officers and agency for damages in civil court

– Exclusionary Rule• Any evidence contained illegally will not be used as

evidence

What is the purpose of the Fifth Amendment provision against self-

incrimination? The right against self-incrimination is a protection of

both the innocent and the guilty alike from the potential abuse of Government power.

The 5th amendments primary purpose is to prohibit the government from threatening, mistreating ,or even torturing people to gain evidence against them or their associates.

The most common provision is refusing to testify by “taking the fifth.”

The clause of the fifth amendment protects persons accused of crimes, and witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves.

Critical Thinking Exercise

Compare the 1791 case and the 1991 case and discuss the following questions…1. In what ways are the two cases similar or dissimilar?

2. What values and interests are involved in each case?

3. Under what conditions, if any, should the right against self-incrimination be applied and limited? Explain.

What happened to Dillon and Fulminante?

• Fulminante got off with a misdemeanor– Misdemeanor- a less serious crime

• In 1991 the supreme court went back to review the case– the threat of physical violence was

legitiment• Without a confession, prosecution did not have

a chance

How have Protections against self-incrimination

developed?• There were now issues including the right

against self-incrimination.– Police could question when ever and who ever

• Now people had to confess or give evidence on their behalf

• The supreme court ruled in the Miranda V. Arizona case that all law enforcement officers had to read the criminals their rights.– “you have the right to remain silent, anything

you say can and will be used against you in the court of law, you have the right to an attorney.”

Case of Tom Alvin• Suspected of being an armed and

dangerous drug dealer• Entrance to narrow apartment

guarded by a dog• Police went in through window and

made a large drug bust• Police deemed that they had

probable cause and decided to take a less lethal entrance pattern

Caller ID• Lobbyists are trying to ban the

caller ID because it shows the number of the caller

• Should only show the name not number.

Lucy Briggs• Flight attendent fired for positive

drug test • Showed up to work under the

influence and agreed to the test• She has no case

Murder victom seized• Police seized a murder suspect without

reading him his rights because he would wash his hands and ruin evidence

• They violated his rights and he was free to go

• They claimed they had no time for a warrent

government• Student filed papers to get a

government scholarship. Confidential personal info was then used in a government survey without permission

• All government works the same so it doesn’t matter.

Personal rights• The right against self incrimination

exists to protect individual rights and privacy.

• Witnesses and defendants can choose not to answer a question if it incriminates them.

Vocb• Contempt of court – Willful disobedience of a judge’s

command or of an official court order.• Exclusionary rule – The rule, established by the Supreme

Court, that evidence unconstitutionally gathered by law enforcement officers may not be used against a defendant in a trial.

• Immunity - In legal terms, exemption from prosecution.• Misdemeanor – a minor criminal offense. • Probable Cause – Reasonable grounds for presuming guilt in

someone accused of a crime. Required in cases in which a law enforcement officer needs to conduct a search or seizure and cannot, for practical purposes obtain a search warrant.

• Right against self-incrimination – Guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, the constitutional right to refuse to give testimony that could subject oneself in criminal prosecution.

Vocb• Right to privacy – The right to be free from intrusion into one’s

private life by government officials.• Warrant – An order by a judge authorizing a police officer to

make an arrest or search, or to perform some other designated act.

• Right against self-incrimination – Guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, the constitutional right to refuse to give testimony that could subject oneself in criminal prosecution.

• Right to privacy – The right to be free from intrusion into one’s private life by government officials.

• Warrant – An order by a judge authorizing a police officer to make an arrest or search, or to perform some other designated act.