4th amendment Search and Seizure

The Fourth Amendment and Landmark Cases: Terry v. Ohio and Mapp v. Ohio Student’s Name, course Instructor’s name Date Executive Summary One of the Fourth Amendment safeguards is the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures that keeps law enforcement within the bounds of the law. This essay discusses the Fourth Amendment using two landmark cases: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and the case of Terry v. Ohio (1968) because the two cases are crucial to understanding the role played by social justice and the evolution of criminal procedure. The case of Mapp v. Ohio justified the exclusionary rule that held evidence obtained unconstitutionally during trial to be unlawful, whereas the case of Terry v. Ohio justified the use of the stop-and-frisk tactics based on reasonable suspicion. Introduction The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states that government authorities are not allowed to unreasonably search or seize its citizens, which violates the basic human rights of individuals. The boundaries of the Amendment have been and will be further redefined with the progression of time through new issues within social life along with the need to redefine the role of law enforcement. The two landmark judgments of the US Supreme Court Terry v. Ohio and Mapp v. Ohio define and are themselves defined by the fundamental laws of searches and seizures (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). The police officers were empowered to stop and search individuals upon reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause through the case of Terry v. Ohio, whereas Mapp v. Ohio reaffirmed the exclusionary rule under which the evidence obtained unethically was not permitted to be used during the trial. Overview of the Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment is part of the Constitution that was ratified in 1791. It states that "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.” This was done under the British government's inclinations to encroach upon private property under the issuance of general warrants without necessarily having to justify sufficiently. The law has changed over the years, and the courts have managed to define the law under the enforcement of law to search individuals and property, affirming the collection of evidence and other measures regarding seizure. Historical Context and Landmark Cases Terry v. Ohio (1968) The case started when a Cleveland police officer observed three men acting suspiciously toward him. The officer stopped one of the men, John W. Terry, and searched him. The officer found a concealed weapon on the man's person. The latter was charged with carrying a concealed weapon (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the police officer was reasonable to stop and conduct a search on Terry. The court said that doing so did not contravene the Fourth Amendment. Proponents claim that the stop-and-frisk measure prevents crime and protects law enforcement officers' interests. On the other hand, there exists the possibility of partiality and intrusiveness upon civil liberty freedoms. The case has continued to shape policing measures employed to date that target urban regions that register higher criminal activity. The case cemented the presumption that law enforcement officers do not need a warrant to investigate. The Terry case affected the decision-making of other cases that involved police interactions with citizens. The case...