Welcome back to Day Four of our series studying the Constitution, together. Today, we will cover the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment states: 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.
When I was in high school, my love for American government and politics was born from my Government class. I became obsessed with studying the Constitution when our teacher told us, “If you are ever pulled over for any reason, and a police officer asks if he can search your vehicle, you tell them, ‘Absolutely not, not without a warrant.’” I remember taking notes and wondering, “Why not? What do I have to hide?” So I asked my Government teacher that very question. He explained, “Without a warrant, he has no probable cause. What’s to stop him from planting something in your car? What’s to stop him from arresting you because of something someone else has in that vehicle? No. No one may search your car, your property, your home, without a warrant.”
That stuck with me.
Today, the Fourth Amendment is understood as placing limits on the government whenever it detains or searches a person or property.
So let’s break down the Fourth Amendment, bit by bit.
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.
This means in order to protect the people, law enforcement cannot simply grab your purse, your backpack, go through your house or car, without a warrant signed by a Judge. The Fourth Amendment usually comes during criminal prosecution in court. The Supreme Court has ruled that if police seize evidence as part of an illegal search, the evidence normally cannot be admitted into court. This is called the “exclusionary rule,” and it is controversial because in most cases evidence is being tossed out even though it shows the person is guilty, and as a result of the police conduct, they might avoid conviction. A famous judge and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice, Benjamin Cardoza said, “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.” Another Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis responded, “If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.”
This is why it is imperative for officers of the court to conduct everything by the book.
The Fourth Amendment protects against arbitrary arrests and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.
If someone from law enforcement bangs on your door and demands entry, they can only do so with a warrant. A warrant that has been signed by a Judge.