Name
Professor
Course
 This training is meant to help all of the trainers of the
constitutional issues.
 some terms found in the fourth amendment of the US
constitution which deal with the protection of the
citizens and those suspected of the criminal activities
from the unlawful arrests from the police officers.
 The amendments protect suspects and citizens from
searches from the same officer.
 This originates from a number of circumstances in which
an officer may want to conduct a search on the suspect's
premises, make arrests and moreover seize some items.
 police officers can conduct these searches where necessary
so as to ensure that their safety and the safety of the public
is guaranteed.
 During emergencies, police may need to carry out a search.
 However, if there is not consent given regarding the
probable cause, then a search is very crucial to be done at
that point.
 Cont.
 Some circumstances dictate that a person is charged
with a space such as a roommate or a spouse and can
give permission for the house to be searched.
Generally, there are some circumstances in which
police officers may be forced to search one's
possessions without a warrant or probable cause.
 If one is subject to warrantless search, then it is very
crucial to recall the details of the situations leading to
the search.

 Fourth amendment bill like the bill of rights was
originally applied at the federal courts.
 In the case regarding the Wolf Versus Colorado in
1949, the Supreme Court decided that the rights that
are guaranteed by the fourth amendment be applied
equally by the state courts.
 It seeks to guarantee the citizens that they have rights
to be protected by laws equally.
 This process was referred as the doctrine of
incorporation
 Cont.
 This fourth amendment mainly concerns with
protecting the citizens against searches and seizures
which are directed by the government.
 These involved the surveillance and investigatory
actions that are carried out strictly on private persons.
 This might include investigations of one's spouse,
nosey neighbors or even private investigators.
 Cont.
 The Fourth Amendment do not indulge itself in
fighting against the government actions, not unless
the defendants have reasonable expectations
 The Supreme Court stated that a person who
coherently exposes to the public is not part of the
fourth amendment objectives.
 The Supreme Court has made it clear that the
individuals should maintain a reasonable expectation
of treatment of privacy in their bodies and even in
their personal belongings.
 For personal properties that are held on the public,
there is no privacy maintained.
 For items that may be lying in someone's backseat or
growing in someone's outdoor, it cannot be attributed
the privacy claims since it also falls in this category.
 However, for some items that is only visible trough
enhanced surveillance such as the telescopic lenses
that are highly powered are subject to the stipulations
of the fourth amendment.
 For items such as the public records and published
phone numbers that are readily accessible to the
general public do not attract privacy subjection.
 The Supreme Court went ahead and stipulated that,
for matters of personal characteristics do not attract
such rights since it is visible to general public (Taslitz
2010).
 On the face of warrant clause and reasonableness clause, it has
appeared to be clearly recorded in the constitution.
 It stipulates that a warrant ought to be supported by a probable
clause in which the officer seeking the warrant swears the truth
of the facts in using his facts to support the application made.
 The Supreme Court stipulated that the warrantless police
officers who may comply with the amendments as stated in the
fourth amendment as long as it is reasonable under such
circumstances are allowable.
 However, the amendment warrants the requirement to reflect
the reluctance of the court in duly impeding the job regarding
the law enforcement officials.
 Reasonable Suspicion is a presumption that claims
that crime has been committed.
 On the other hand, probable cause is a logical belief
which is supported by facts that actually a crime was
committed.
 This indicates that a crime was committed and thus an
investigation should be carried out to confirm the
same.
 The Probable cause and the reasonable suspicion dictate
that the police searching and seizing someone's items will
need to justify such acts in conformity to the fourth
amendment.
 There are exceptions that justification should be presented
in two forms:
 the police ought to have probable cause
 they must also have reasonable suspicion.
 The justification of the probable cause as stipulated by the
Supreme Court is that the officer should apply probable
cause when the facts and circumstances within the
knowledge of reasonable trustworthy information that is
moreover sufficient to warrant for a man's probable
actions.
 To depict the decision-making process in probable cause and
reasonable suspicion, a case example of Cost Versus
Commonwealth in which a police officer is patrolling and
looking for people who were parked yet not residents of the
property.
 Cost, when asked a question by the officer, did not answer the
officer and resisted what he was told to do. As a result, the officer
was forced to remove cost from the car. Cost refused to be
searched.
 After patting him, he felt some bulges believed to be capsules
based on their narcotics training. When told to remove what was
in the pocket, cost removed plastic baggies containing heroine
capsules.
 The court ruled that the officer did not have a probable cause to
think that the suspect had heroine’s capsules.
 The stop and frisk raises a very serious concern with
regards to the racial profiling and illegal stops
regarding the privacy rights.
 The department of the New York Police Department
(NYPD) confirms the contents pedestrians.
 They do this by searching randomly on the people
arrested.
 Violating the fourth amendment results in the
exclusionary rule.
 For instance, when an officer is prosecuted for being
overzealous law enforcers, that it is extremely rare.
 A police officer making illegal search and seizure will
be also subjected to departmental discipline.









Ackerman, G. (2011). Law and courts: Current perspectives from InfoTrac. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Barton, R. R. (2015). Texas search and seizure.
Bloom, R. M. (2013). Searches, seizures, and warrants: A reference guide to the United
States Constitution. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
La, V. N. G., Lachman, P., Rao, S., Matthews, A., Urban Institute,, & COPS Program
(U.S.),. (2014). Stop and Frisk: Balancing Crime Control with Community Relations.
Maclin, T. (2013). The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saltzburg, S. A., & Capra, D. J. (2014). American criminal procedure: Cases and
commentary. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
Schulhofer, S. J. (2012). More essential than ever: The Fourth Amendment in the twentyfirst century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taslitz, A. E. (2010). Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A history of search and
seizure, 1789-1868. New York: New York University Press.
Turvey, B. E., & Cooley, C. M. (2014). Miscarriages of Justice: Actual Innocence, Forensic
Evidence, and the Law. Burlington: Elsevier Science.