Ways in Which the Fourth Amendment Impacts on the Justice System, Research Paper Example

The Declaration of Independence was a big turning point in the lives of many Americans. The article not only afforded America freedom from the Crown of England, but also guaranteed the enjoyment of freedom and liberty to the American citizenry. The enlightenment era of the 18^th century capped the achievement of independence, by shifting attention from society to the individual. It became increasingly fashionable to recognize people’s inalienable rights, such as liberty, the freedom of movement, speech, the right to own property and so on. In the legal sphere, the pursuit for justice for both individuals and society occasioned the enactment of various laws by Congress, which sought to protect people against unfair treatment by the legal system. Nonetheless, emerging trends in the practice of law reveal the underside of some of these enactments, whose legal interpretation often hinder the legal process itself. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S constitution is a case in point, whose provisions derail the justice train by protecting culpable offenders and suspects. This essay examines the ways in which the Fourth Amendment in the US constitution impacts in the processing of offenders through the justice system.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S constitution states:

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 the persons or things to be seized (Taslitz, p. 6).

It started a long time ago, perhaps having its roots in John Locke’s State of Nature, where each man was his own boss (Taslitz, p. 3). In the 17^th century, philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in his book, On Liberty, that individuals were free to pursue happiness without external coercion, so long as they did not violate the rights of others. The hallmark, however, was Supreme Court judge Justice Brandeis’ famous assertion of “the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into private life” (qtd in Latzer, 1991, p. 75). The immediate concern arising from this declaration is the unsettling fact that the right affords protection of privacy to law abiding citizens as well as criminals. It is an umbrella-cushioning, which fails to discriminate between offenders who should face the law in its bluntness, and the good citizens who should enjoy its provisions.

In this regard, the Fourth Amendment’s provision that every search should result from a probable cause provides suspects with a weapon to frustrate the collection of incriminating evidence. At the same time, the light of this the Fourth Amendment’s provision for people’s right to be free from un-consensual intrusion of their privacy hinders the legal process in two ways. First, it hinders the collection of evidence by prohibiting law enforcers from searching suspects or their premises without reasonable cause. Secondly, it requires law enforcers to produce warrants before searching private properties.

These provisions are lethal ammunition for defense attorneys who use it to refute incriminating evidence, which may have been collected in violation of some provisions of the Fourth Amendment. For example, the courts may dismiss evidence that criminal investigators collect while the defendant is in custody. In the case of Davis vs. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-28 (’69), the court ruled that evidence resulting from unlawful detention is not proof of the commission of crime. In the case, police had, without warrants, arrested some youths while investigating a rape in Meridian, Mississippi. They questioned and fingerprinted the appellant, and released him. Without a probable cause or warrant, they re-arrested him and confined him in a cell overnight, during which time the police sent his fingerprints to the FBI to match with evidence they collected at the victim’s house. Despite the petitioner’s objection during trial that the evidence was a product of unlawful confinement, the court admitted the evidence and convicted him. However, the Mississippi Supreme court overruled the conviction by noting that:

1. Fingerprint evidence is no exception to the rule that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a state court.
2. The Fourth Amendment applies to involuntary detention occurring at the investigatory stage as well as at the accusatory stage.

• Detentions for the sole purpose of obtaining fingerprints are subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment (U. S. Supreme Court Center, 1969, pp 726-727).

Another downside of the Fourth Amendment in the processing of offenders through the justice system is the delays it causes in collecting evidence. For instance, a delay to conduct a search until a probable cause is established, or the court gives a search warrant may give the offender enough time to destroy evidence. More often that not, suspects are aware of an intended search on their premises, which provides them with ample time to either destroy or hide any incriminating evidence in their possession.

Perhaps what has dodged the U.S legal system for centuries is the proper definition of the phrase “unreasonable search.” The Supreme Court has not clearly defined the standards that apply to a search that is unreasonable or otherwise. For instance, it is not clear whether an unreasonable search is one that lacks probable cause, a warrant or one that violates people’s privacy. In this perspective, a clear suspect may evade justice in the event the police accosts him in the street and has no arrest or search warrant. Similarly, a policeman may be certain that a suspect is hiding illegal drugs or weapons in the ceiling of their bedroom, but cannot impound it without violating the privacy of the suspect.

Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment provides exceptions in which police officers can present before the court evidence they collect in the absence of a warrant, or even without conducting a search. For instance, relying on a sniffer dog to locate illegal drugs does not infringe on personal privacy, since the odor that the dog sniffs is within the public space. Similarly, if a police officer peeps into a building through an open window, or a parked car, the evidence he gathers is admissible in court. In addition, some common sense exceptions permit the police officer to frisk or arrest a criminal caught red-handed committing a crime, such as during a robbery. However, more empowering are exceptions under the exigent circumstances, such as the “hot pursuit exception” (McClory, 2006). Under this exception, the police officer can pursue and arrest a fleeing criminal, even if the said criminal seeks refugee inside a private property. It is at this point that the Fourth Amendment makes a controversial about-turn and lifts the umbrella-cushioning it affords individuals against intrusions into their privacy as a result of unreasonable searches.

In conclusion, the Fourth Amendment aims to protect people’s privacy from unlawful searches by the police. It determines that law enforcers should produce a warrant stating what they intend to search. However, the Fourth Amendment’s emphasis on a warrant as a license to search or arrest hinders the justice system by protecting possible culprits. This notwithstanding, however, it gives teeth to the justice system by defining exceptions under which a search or arrest warrant is not necessary.

References

Latzer, B. (1991). State Constitutions and Criminal Justice. New York: ABC-CLIO

McClory, T. (2006). The Fourth Amendment. Retrieved November 29, 2010 <http://web.gccaz.edu/~tmcclory/Factsheets/Factsheet_4thAmendment.pdf>

Taslitz, A. (2006). Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: a history of search and seizure, 1789-1868. New York: NYU Press.

U.S. Supreme Court Center. (1969). Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969). Retrieved form Justia.com November 29, 2010 < http://supreme.justia.com/us/394/721/>