Running head: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution

Name
Affiliation

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION

Question 1
It is noted in the fourth amendment Law of United States that the police have could or could not
have an entry to a person houses. Therefore, the below explanation will explain more about the
above Law:
Search
It is noted that in a certain situation, the police might have access to entry to someone home to
search. This is only possible when they have a reasonable suspicion of any nature of criminal
activity even if the nature of the crime falls short of cause of the arrest. Based on the Terry v.
Ohio case, the police have access to conduct a warrantless search to a persons premise such as a
house or home under certain circumstances as it may appear. In terry, for example, the Supreme
Court noted that when a police offers witnesses unusual conduct that makes the officer think
reasonably that the criminal conduct maybe be stirring. If, for example, the suspected person as a
weapon and if he/she is dangerous to the police. The officer is allowed access to the person
premises to ascertain if the suspect has a woman or not.
This type of search is known as Terry stop. To conduct such a search, the officer is mandated
to consider articulated facts, taken with rational inference from the suspect to reasonable warrant
as search to the premise of the suspect. As settled in Florida v. Royer (1983), such a hunt must be
impermanent, and addressing must be restricted to the reason for the stop. For example, the
police officer who stops an individual because they have sensible suspicion (Lasson, 1970). To
affirm that the individual was driving in the wake of affirming that it is not stolen constrain the
individual to answer addresses about whatever else might be available, for example, the
ownership of contraband.
Question 2

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION

Under the Fourth Amendment, law requirement must get composed authorization from a court of
law, or qualified justice, to legally inquiry and seize evidence while exploring criminal action. A
court stipends consent by issuing a writ known as an issue. A hunt or seizure is for the most part
irrational and unlawful if directed without a substantial warrant and the police must acquire a
warrant at whatever point practicable. Inquiries and seizures without a warrant are not viewed as
outlandish if one of the particularly settled and outlined special cases to the warrant necessity
applies. These exemptions apply "just in those outstanding circumstances in which extraordinary
needs, past the typical requirement for law implementation, make the warrant and reasonable
justification prerequisite impracticable. In these circumstances where the warrant necessity
doesn't have any significant bearing a pursuit or seizure regardless must be legitimized by some
individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. In any case, the U.S. Incomparable Court cut out an
exemption to the prerequisite of individualized suspicion. It decided that, "In restricted
circumstances, where the security diversions involved by the pursuit are insignificant. Where an
imperative legislative investment promoted by the interruption would be put in peril by a
necessity of individualized suspicion" a hunt or seizure would at present be sensible.
Question 3
There are four principle circumstances in which a warrant is not needed for police to pursuit your
home:
Consent. In the event that an individual who is in control of the property agrees to the
pursuit without being pressured or deceived into doing along these lines, a hunt without a
warrant is legitimate. Note that police don't need to let you know that you have the right to deny
an inquiry. However, you do. Likewise, note that if that in the case that the officer's Allie is
injured he, or she can agree to a hunt of the regular zones of your abode. However, not to your

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION

private territories (room, case in point). Then again, the Supreme Court as of late decided that
one mate can't agree to the pursuit of a house for the other.
Plain View: In the event that a Police as of now has the right to be on your property and
sees contraband or confirmation of wrongdoing that is unmistakably noticeable. The protest may
be legitimately seized and utilized as evidence. For instance, if the police are in your home on an
abusive behavior at home call and see cannabis plants on the windowsill, the plants can be seized
as confirmation.
Search Incident to Arrest: If you are arrested from your home or premises. The police
may hunt down weapons or different associates to secure their wellbeing (known as an issue
"range") or they might overall pursuit to keep the decimation of confirmation.
Exigent Circumstances: This special case alludes to crisis circumstances where the
procedure of getting a legitimate court order could trade off open wellbeing or could prompt a
loss of confirmation. This includes cases of "direct pursuit" in which a suspect is going to escape.
A late California Supreme Court choice decided that police may enter a suspects home without a
warrant on the premise of the hypothesis that critical confirmation. Such as the suspect's blood
alcohol level may be lost otherwise.
Question 4
As a rule, the police are approved to lead a warrantless inquiry when the time it would
take to get a warrant would imperil open wellbeing or lead to the loss of imperative
confirmation. Here are a few circumstances in which most judges would maintain a warrantless
pursuit: Following a health or medication case, the officer is allowed to go into the home of the
victim without any warranty. A Police on a standard watch hears yells and shouts originating
from a home, hurries in, and arrests a suspect for spousal ill-use. In addition, police "close

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION

behind" of an escaping criminal proceeds with the pursuit into the suspect's abode so as to make
the arrest.
In these sorts of crisis circumstances, an officer's obligation to ensure individuals and save
evidence exceeds the warrant prerequisite.
Question 5
A police officer doesnt need a warrant to seize booty or evidence that is "in plain view"
if the officer is in the region where the confirmation or contraband is initially spotted. The officer
must have reasonable justification to accept the thing is evidence or contraband keeping in mind
the end goal to seize it, however. So, if an officer who has legally pulled you over spots what
seems to be cocaine on the traveler seat, he can most likely analyze it, seize it and arrest a
suspect. Therefore, it can be noted that the Fourth Amendment has both positive and negative
effects not only to the police but also the public.

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION

References
Lasson, N. B. (1970). The history and development of the fourth amendment to the United States
Constitution (pp. 51-105). Da Capo Press.