4. Amendment to the United States Constitution
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America , the Fourth Amendment , is part of the Bill of Rights , the first ten constitutional amendments. It contains the legal right of the American citizen to protect him from state attacks.
text
“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. "
"The right of the people to the security of the person and the home, the documents and the property against arbitrary search, arrest and seizure must not be violated, and house search and arrest warrants may only be issued if there is an oath or affidavit substantiated legal reason and must the Identify the location to be searched and the persons or objects to be taken into custody. "
The 4th amendment to the constitution is listed in the bill of law passed by the US Congress as the "sixth article" ("Article the sixth") .
history
The original text of the US Constitution aroused some opposition for failing to adequately guarantee civil rights. In response to this, the Fourth Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was proposed by the US Congress in 1789 . On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights had been ratified by the necessary number of states and thus passed.
Legitimate reliance on privacy protection
Not every act by which a police officer verifies information is considered a "search". A police officer who is looking at something that is publicly visible (for example, looking into a house from the street through a window) does not “search” the house. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that a search would only take place if a person legitimately trusts their privacy (" reasonable expectation of privacy "), i.e. only if society recognizes this trust. For example, there is no search if a police officer sifts through garbage because garbage is public. Similarly, when police officers monitor which phone numbers a person is dialing, no search takes place, even though Congress has restricted such monitoring. This doctrine sometimes leads to somewhat unexpected results; For example, in 1989 it was decided that there was no justified trust in the protection of privacy and therefore no search would take place in the legal sense when officers hovered in a helicopter 150 meters above a suspect's house and observed him from there.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that no privacy can be expected during illegal activities. Therefore, investigations that only uncover illegal activity (such as some uses of drug tracking dogs ) are not searches.
Searches and seizures without a warrant
In certain circumstances, a search or seizure may not require a search warrant. Police officers are allowed to search and confiscate things " in plain view " (German: [public] simply perceptible). However, prior to the search and seizure, police officers must have reasonable grounds to believe that possession of these items is prohibited. Similarly, open fields - pastures, open water bodies, forests and other such areas - are unlikely to be due to the fact that people who act in those areas cannot legitimately rely on privacy protection without a warrant be searched. In contrast to its apparent meaning, the “ open fields ” doctrine today encompasses almost any open area that is not directly around a house. A trial was brought about in 1984 because the police ignored an “Unauthorized entry prohibited” sign, entered the suspect's property illegally and without a search warrant, then followed a dirt road a few hundred meters and finally discovered a marijuana field. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place.
In addition, no search warrants are required under “ exigent circumstances ” - for example, if a police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a suspect might destroy evidence, he may confiscate or otherwise secure this evidence without a search warrant.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the reasonably expected privacy of people in automobiles was lower because vehicles were usually not used as homes or storage places for personal property. However, vehicles may not be stopped and searched indiscriminately; There must be a credible reason for or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but a violation of traffic rules is enough to stop a car. Items that “can be seen clearly [publicly]” may be confiscated; Places where weapons may have been hidden may also be searched. Police officers are allowed to search any area of the vehicle with a credible reason. However, you may not extend the search to the occupants of the vehicle unless they have a credible reason to do so.
Under common law , a ruling by the Supreme Court would allow a police officer to arrest someone who has committed offenses in his presence or whom he reasonably suspects of having committed a crime (arrests are seizures for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment). However, the officer in question must have had a credible reason prior to arrest; Evidence discovered after the arrest may not be used retrospectively to substantiate the arrest.
Another common law provision - that which allows searches associated with an arrest to be carried out without a search warrant - has also been used in American law. Such a search is justified on the grounds that the arrested person must be prevented from destroying evidence or using a weapon against the arresting police officer. In 1948 the Supreme Court ruled:
“A search or seizure without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest has always been considered to be a strictly limited right. It grows out of the inherent necessities of the situation at the time of the arrest. But there must be something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest. "
“A search or seizure without a warrant, combined with a lawful arrest, has always been considered a strictly limited right. This right arises from the needs inherent in the situation during arrest. But there must be needs that go beyond legal arrest. "
In 1950 the Supreme Court revised its case law by ruling that the police officer's chance of obtaining a search warrant was not relevant to the adequacy of a search associated with an arrest. This judgment suggested that each region under the direct control ( " immediate control could be searched") of those arrested, this expression but not defined. In 1969 the court developed these principles further: In an arrest, it is appropriate for the police officer to search the arrested person for weapons and evidence. Similarly, it is also appropriate for the police officer to search the areas under "direct control" of the detainee, that is, the places where the detainee may have kept weapons or evidence. A search of the room in which the arrest is being carried out is therefore permitted, but this does not apply to the search of other rooms, because the arrested person would probably not be able to access weapons or evidence in these rooms when he was arrested.
This standard of reasonable justification also applies to house searches of people on probation.
It has been ordered that no search warrant or credible reason is required for searches in public schools. It is only necessary that the police officers conducting the search believe, for reasonable reasons, that the search will provide evidence of illegal activity. Government agencies may be searched for evidence of misconduct by government employees affecting their work on the same grounds. The searches of prison cells are not restricted as to their reasonableness or any plausible reason; the same applies to searches carried out at the border. Finally, it should be said that searches can be carried out if the person concerned agrees to them.
Exclusionary Rule
Under common law , all evidence, no matter how it was seized, could previously be admitted to trial. In 1914, however, the Supreme Court introduced the exclusionary rule , according to which unlawfully confiscated evidence is excluded from further use in a trial. This rule is mainly used as a discipline against police officers who attempt to carry out unlawful searches and seizures. Since 1961, this principle has also applied to state jurisdiction . However, there are exceptions: in 1984 the Supreme Court established the good faith rule , according to which evidence that was seized by police officers with justified trust in the existence of a search warrant that was later declared invalid will be admitted in a later trial can. However, if a police officer has fraudulently prepared or accepted a third party declaration that formed the basis of this search warrant, or if the issuing judge, without maintaining his neutrality, or if the search warrant was lacking in accuracy, the evidence seized under the search warrant will not be confiscated authorized. It is not entirely clear whether this principle also applies to seizures without a search warrant. In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled that grand juries could use unlawfully obtained evidence to question witnesses.
The Supreme Court also stated that the principle of exclusion does not apply in the following situations:
- in probation trials or trials whose object is the revocation of early release from prison
- in tax processes
- in deportation processes
- when government officials outside the US illegally confiscate evidence
- when a private individual (that is, not a government employee) illegally confiscated the evidence
- if the illegally seized evidence is used to cast doubt on the accused's testimony
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (fruit of the poisonous tree) is an extension of the principle of exclusion. It prohibits the executive from using further evidence that it was only able to ascertain and gain because it had knowledge from an illegal measure (poisoned tree), to which the principle of exclusion is already applicable.
A defendant may only ask for the exclusion of evidence if its seizure violates his own rights under the Fourth Amendment, but he cannot invoke the rights of third parties.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Katz v. United States
- ↑ Florida v. Riley
- ↑ Oliver v. United States
- ↑ Delaware v. Prouse
- ↑ Whren v. United States
- ↑ Trupiano v. United States
- ↑ United States v. Rabinowitz
- ↑ Chimel v. California
- ↑ Weeks v. United States
- ↑ Mapp v. Ohio
- ↑ United States v. Leon
