One of the clear strengths of the U.S. Constitution is its flexibility--this is a document that has been designed to evolve and grow over time in order to meet changed circumstances and new perspectives in society. The American system from the first was seen as something that would be organic rather than static and that would empower the people to make changes as they perceived a need to do so. In keeping with this idea of evolution, the founding Fathers provided for a judicial body, the U.S. Supreme Court, to interpret the meaning of and application of the Constitution. Over the course of the last two centuries, the Supreme Court has made numerous interpretations and reinterpretations of the Constitution, with the philosophy of the judges tending between two poles. On the one hand is a belief in the meaning placed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, a meaning often referred to as "original intent." Under this doctrine, cases are to be decided based on what the Founding Fathers meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution. An opposite view would hold that the interpretation of the Constitution should be made more on the basis of present circumstances and needs. This second approach need not ignore original intent, but it does not give it the same weight as the more conservative judges. How this issue is argued will be considered in terms of applications to the Fourth Amendment, showing finally that strict adherence to "original intent" actually fails to serve the intent of the Framers and the realities of a changing world.
The Fourth Amendment addresses questions of search and seizure and is worded as follows:
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...