The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution - Essay Example

?Running Head: THE THREE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT The Three Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment By Introduction The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states that “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.” Two important clauses can be noted from the aforementioned provision: the reasonableness clause, and; the warrants clause. Different approaches to the interpretation of this amendment either closely link these two clauses together or take them as separate and independent from each other. There are three various approaches to the interpretation of the Amendment are known as the Warrant Approach, the Reasonableness Approach and the Special Needs Doctrine, all of which are presented, defined and illustrated by various cases decided by the US Supreme Court at one time or another. The Warrant Approach Before the 1960s, the courts approached the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by closely linking the two clauses on reasonableness and warrant. The first is deemed a mere introduction to the second clause, which implies that so long as warrants are employed in conducting the search and seizure, then the principle of the Fourth Amendment is met because the warrant is the embodiment of the reasonableness clause. On the other hand, any search and seizure conducted without the use of a warrant is ipso facto unreasonable and defies the reasonableness clause of said Amendment (Harr & Hess, 2007, pp. 178-179). This approach is underpinned by the idea that unless within established exceptions, warrantless searches or seizures in which there have been no prior approval by the court are unreasonable because they are conducted outside the realm of the judicial process (cited in the dissent of Stewart in US v Edwards 415 US 800 (1974). The conventional Warrant Approach is evident in the cases of Coolidge v New Hampshire 403 US 443-454, US v. Chadwick 433 U.S. 1 (1977), Payton v New York 445 US 573 (1980), Go-Bart Importing Co v US 282 U.S. 344, the dissent in US v Edwards 415 U.S. 800 (1974) and Camara v. Municipal Court 387 US 523 (1967). In Coolidge, the US Supreme Court reversed and remanded the conviction of the defendant on the ground that the evidence supporting it was inadmissible for violation of the Fourth Amendment. The search warrant for the search of the defendant’s car was invalid because it was issued by the Attorney General who was the chief prosecutor of the case and was therefore not a “neutral and detached magistrate.” Because there was, in effect, an absence of warrant, the search was deemed done outside the judicial process and was per se unreasonable. In Chadwick, the Court ruled that opening a footlocker inside the trunk of a car without a warrant contravened the Fourth Amendment because of the heightened privacy expectation attached to it. In Payton, a New York law allows the police to enter a felony suspect’s home and arrest him without a warrant. The Court ruled that this law violated the Fourth Amendment because it allowed a search without prior authority granted by a neutral magistrate. In Go-Bart Importing, the Court reversed again a judgment of conviction on the ground that the search of a desk and a safe and the seizure of evidence therefrom on the basis of a search warrant issued by the US Commissioner were invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Finally in Camara, the Court ruled that searches conducted by government health and safety inspectors are subject to warrant under the Fourth Amendment because they intrude upon the privacy of persons protected by it and unless the owner consents to the search, the same is deemed unreasonable. The Reasonableness Approach In the 1960s, the US Supreme Court broadened its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment shifting from the traditional approach to the more realistic reasonableness approach. Here, they decided that the reasonableness clause and the warrant clause are separate and distinct from each other. This approach consists of two kinds of elements that must be proven by the government in conducting warrantless arrests to be valid within the Fourth Amendment context: balancing elements, and; objective basis. The first requires that the need to conduct the search without warrant outweighs the right of the individual to his liberty and privacy and the second requires the existence of a preponderance of facts and circumstances to justify the warrantless search (Samaha, 2011, p. 87). Several cases illustrate the Reasonableness Approach: Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983), California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1068), and Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). In Lafayette, the Court ruled that searching the personal effects of a person held under lawful arrest as part of a routine administrative procedure does not violate the Fourth Amendment. In Acevedo, the Court ruled that opening and searching a closed container inside the trunk of a car on the ground that it probably held illegal contraband does not violate the Fourth Amendment despite the lack of probable cause to search the car. In Terry, the Court held that the frisking of a suspect stopped in the streets by a policeman does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the latter has a reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. Finally, in Chimel, the Court limited the area to which authorities can conduct a search in the home of a person subjected to a warrantless arrest to his immediate vicinity to prevent him from reaching for concealed weapons and endanger the arresting officers. Any search done outside it violates the Fourth Amendment. The Special Needs Doctrine The special needs doctrine as was stated in Griffin v Wisconsin 483 US 868, 872 is conducting a warrantless arrest and seizure if the situation “beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” It is particularly applicable to schools, government offices and some highly regulated commercial entities in searches particularly conducted without the participation of law enforcement officers, such as school authorities (Solove et al, 2006, p. 61). The following are some of the cases that illustrate the Special Needs Doctrine: New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), Skinner v. Railway L.E.A., 489 U.S. 602 (1989), Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), and Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997). In TLO, the Court held that although the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the acts of schools officials with respect to the reasonableness clause, the warrant and probable cause do not. Thus, in this case, the school official had probable cause to search the bag of the student for evidence of cigarettes after she was seen smoking them, which search yielded marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The Skinner case involves random drug testing of employees of the Federal Railroad Administration. In upholding the drug testing, the Court used the “special need” of the government to ensure public safety in the operation of the country’s railways. In Michigan, the police authorities enforced a sobriety check program by setting up roadblocks at strategic areas. When the program was challenged in court for violation of the Fourth Amendment, the SC upheld its constitutionality on the ground that between the brief intrusion into the motorists and the duty of the government to ensure road safety of the public, the scales weigh more heavily on the latter. The Court took the opposing stand in Chandler when it invalidated a Georgia statute requiring all candidates for elected office to undergo and pass a urinalysis drug testing. References Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) Camara v. Municipal Court 387 US 523 (1967) California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) Coolidge v New Hampshire 403 US 443-454 Go-Bart Importing Co v US 282 U.S. 344 Griffin v Wisconsin 483 US 868, 872 (1987) Harr, J. and Hess, K. (2007). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. 4th Edn. USA: Cengage Learning. Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983) Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) Payton v New York 445 US 573 (1980) Samaha, J. (2011). Criminal Procedure. 8th Ed., US: Cengage Learning. Scott, J. and Hess, K. (2007). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. 4th Ed., California: Cengage Learning, 2007 Skinner v. Railway L.E.A., 489 U.S. 602 (1989) Solove, D., Rotenberg, M. and Schwartz, P. (2006). Privacy, Information, and Technology. New York: Aspen Publishers Online. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1068) US v. Chadwick 433 U.S. 1 (1977) US v Edwards 415 U.S. 800 (1974) Read More