4TH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE

This essay traces the evolution of the jurisprudence of the American Supreme Court in its interpretations since 1960 of the Fourth Amendment. In balancing the rights of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement and other governmental agencies and the interests of public order, the Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-1969) tipped the scales in the 60s in favor of individual rights, by ruling that the prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment applied to the states and local governments under the exclusionary rule, emphasizing the importance of searches and seizures being conducted in accordance with search warrants issued by neutral judges or magistrates and restricting the legitimate scope of warrantless searches. Subsequent Courts under Chief Justices Warren Burger (1970-1986) and William Rehnquist in the late 80s and the 90s circscribed the prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment, mainly by expanding the permissible zone of police searches incident to lawful arrests, by creating various exceptions to sanction warrantless searches and seizures and by narrowing significantly the impact of the exclusionary rule.

This partial reversal of course by the Court since the early 70s mirrored public concern over rising crime rates in the United States and reflected the more conservative composition of the Court itself. These jurisprudential changes have been evolutionary rather than revolutiona

. . .
is" under which the only issue was whether there was "a fair probability" that the information was accurate. Plain view doctrine. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1925), refused to apply the Fourth Amendment to an area open to plain view (an open field). If the police are wherever they are legally, an item is left in 'plain view' and there is probable cause to believe that the item is evidence, it may be legally seized. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). Other leading cases are Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) and California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1995), upholding the constitutionality of warrantless searches involving aerial surveillance of a backyard and examination of trash left outside a home, respectively. Horton reversed the old rule that evidence had to come to the authorities inadvertently for the plain view doctrine to apply. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) recognized what Moylan calls "a plain feel doctrine" (1995, p. 13). A split in authority exists among the federal courts as to whether warrantless searches inside a home through the use of thermal imagers are valid. Cases holding that such searches are lawful have relied on the plain view doctrine, reasoning that occupants d
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Fourth Amendment, Justice Warren, Maryland Buie, Minnesota Dickerson, Chandler Miller, Katz United, Supreme Court, Spinelli United, United Mendenhall, Florida Royer, fourth amendment, warrantless searches, exclusionary rule, probable cause, supreme court, searches seizures, illegal drugs, private homes, warren court, search warrant, reasonable privacy expectation, core fourth amendment, plain view doctrine, burger rehnquist courts, supported probable cause,
Approximate Word count = 4118
Approximate Pages = 16 (250 words per page)

More Essays on 4TH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE