...In Mapp v. Ohio, , the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted. Read full entry
This entry is from Wikipedia,the leading user-contributed encyclopedia.It may not have been reviewed by professional editors(See full disclaimer)
- 1.Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...
- Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F
ourth_Amendment_to_the_United_ States_Constitution
- 2.Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...
- Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) prohibits both ...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T
wenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_ United_States_Constitution
 |
What is stated in the Fourth Do you know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F
ourth_Amendment_to_the_United_
States_Constitution
`
"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."
`
Don W (below) Sort of like
what one's definition of "is"
is...
TEA (below) I agree with you
100% HOWEVER, I need another
source outside of Wiki. Can
you try to find one? Thanks
for the link and the input
too.
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
"Reasonable/unreasonable", are key words here. |
|
|
|
|
|
How come a judge can read and But Bush, Cheney and Your
Congress members can't? It
doesn't sound like this judge
thinks that the United States
Constitution is JUST a piece
of paper. Is Bush still
playing politics with
Americans rights -lives
What do you think?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20
999950/
Judge rules part of Patriot
Act unconstitutional
Provisions allow search
warrants issued without
probable cause, she says
PORTLAND, Ore. - Two
provisions of the USA Patriot
Act are unconstitutional
because they allow search
warrants to be issued without
a showing of probable cause, a
federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken
ruled that the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act,
as amended by the Patriot Act,
"now permits the executive
branch of government to
conduct surveillance and
searches of American citizens
without satisfying the
probable cause requirements of
the Fourth Amendment."
wait for additional details of
article before answering.
Since no one cares to open
links
Portland attorney Brandon
Mayfield sought the ruling in
a lawsuit against the federal
government after he was
mistakenly linked by the FBI
to the Madrid train bombings
that killed 191 people in
2004.
The federal government
apologized and settled part of
the lawsuit for $2 million
after admitting a fingerprint
was misread. But as part of
the settlement, Mayfield
retained the right to
challenge parts of the Patriot
Act, which greatly expanded
the authority of law enforcers
to investigate suspected acts
of terrorism.
Mayfield claimed that secret
searches of his house and
office under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act
violated the Fourth
Amendment's guarantee against
unreasonable search and
seizure. Aiken agreed with
Mayfield, repeatedly
criticizing the government.
"For over 200 years, this
Nation has adhered to the rule
of law
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mayfield is only one example. One can but wonder how many more American citizens has this happened to that we don't know about. It is good to see that someone is upholding the Constitution. The so called "patriot" act certainly seems to put into question how safe we are and what other rights this Administration intends to remove or diminish. |
|
|
|
|
|
What are the impacts did the essay
What are the impacts did the
fourth, fifth and sixth
amendments to the constitution
of the United States of
America on everyday police
operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court. Fifth Amendment: forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; prohibits double jeopardy (repeated trials), except in certain very limited circumstances; forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Taking the Fifth" or "Pleading the Fifth"). This is regarded as the "rights of the accused" amendment, otherwise known as the Miranda rights after the Supreme Court case. It also prohibits government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation," the basis of eminent domain in the United States. Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including Powell v. Alabama, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Crawford v. Washington. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibition on forced self-incrimination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the Miranda rights. These amendments have made it more difficult to obtain convictions based on confessions because having been read their rights many people clam up. It has also reduced the instances of police using "third degree" tactics and other questionable interrogation devices to obtain confessions whether they be true or false! Basically it has meant a more honest police force but one that has to work much harder for convictions - a case of needing justice "seen to be done" |
|
|
|
|
* Indicates a required fieldAdd your knowledge or ask a question:
