fourth amendment simplified

google_ad_slot = "2293719254"; What government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"? But the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations. The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. Associate Professor of Political Science, Queens University of Charlotte. The Fourth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. [3] On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment. However, not enough of the then-13 states were initially willing to adopt it, and so a promise to amend it to include clear statements of the people’s rights helped it pass. The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any search warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. This page was last changed on 1 March 2018, at 21:11. Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the google_ad_client = "ca-pub-2529405258284775"; Early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to a law enforcement officer's physical intrusion onto private property. Tobey had the fourth amendment written on his chest and the charges were eventually dropped. Get exclusive access to content from our 1768 First Edition with your subscription. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [1953–69]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (1986–2005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons. //-->,