Fourth Amendment Summary  – CONTENT CARTEL

Fourth Amendment Summary

The current paper aims at observing the Fourth Amendment context and definition for the contemporary US criminal proceedings. It outlines the primary subjects and objects protected by the Fourth Amendment, its origin
from the English common law and the related terms consistent with its modern use. The paper does not expand on the exclusionary rule as it requires a separate analysis concerning its content.

The Fourth Amendment was designed in the pre-Revolutionary America to secure the Bill of Rights. The British Parliament insisted on smuggling activities cease that implied the necessity of simplification of search and
seizure process. The “writs of assistance” enabled ones that made colonists vulnerable to land and possession grab, imprisonment, corporal punishments, etc. (Worrall, 2014, p. 69). Introduced to Congress in 1789, the Amendment was proposed as a remedy. It covered several issues concerning a) unwarranted arrests “without a reasonable cause”; b) land and possessions grab prevention; c) outlining the procedure that narrowed the ability to search and arrest to the subjects and objects specified in the previously obtained warrant – a document that gave grounds to the officials. The basic terms of the Fourth Amendment included search, persons, houses, papers and effects. The definition of them stood for the amount of police involvement with search and seizure. The person stood for the individual concerning his/her internal and external body. A house conveyed an individual’s residence. While the possession prior to the warrant deemed inviolable, the search warrant included the specific objects or parts of the residence where the search could be performed (Worrall, 2014, p. 71).
Papers and effects explained personal items, relations, luggage, clothing, weapons, etc. Thus, the Amendment created two basic principles for search and seizure including the governmental warrant and a reasonable
expectation, i.e. cause for the search. The search, accordingly, is a formal and detailed procedure aimed at evidence searching but not with the intent of taking anything outside the warrant.

The Amendment, however, brings into play several exceptions concerning the warrantless searches. Thus, the four cases marked incident to arrest, exigent circumstances, consent searches, automobile involvement and the
“plain view” evidence (Worrall, 2014, p. 130). These exceptions, on the one hand, prevented power abuse from the authorities. On the other, created issues observed below based on the “reasonability” of suspicion.
The Amendment indirectly impacts several procedural adverse effects, including disparities and racial profiling. Thus, the disadvantaged areas with higher crime rate might become frequent victims of unreasonable
searches based on the prior experience. Dr. Higgings from the University of Louisiana explained that “reasonable suspicion” currently became associated with public “biases” and non-motivated perceptions of what can be considered “suspicious” (Chapter 7 Issue 1: Racial Profiling, Disparities and the 4th Amendment, 2017). The analysis suggests that “Blacks and Hispanics” are worse handled by the police and, subsequently, …