Posted: September 7th, 2022

Fourth Amendment: Protection of Civil and Property Rights

Fourth Amendment: Protection of Civil and Property Rights
There are a variety of existing laws that seek to protect individual rights and freedoms. The due process is also an important aspect of criminal justice. With the increasing number of crimes, the U.S. is progressively working towards improving and reforming the police service. To this effect, the police, just like all other state workers, have targets to reach to maintain criminality within their regions of significance at a low. At the same time, there is a wide variety of rules that regulate police against intimidation of private citizens and work to offer the same citizens its liberty. Due process is an important principle tool that balances the police’s power and that of the criminal systems against over-exploitation of the common man (Siegel and Worrall, 2018: 2024 – Write My Essay For Me | Essay Writing Service For Your Papers Online). It works by limiting laws and legal actions, limiting the police’s functions from intimidating private citizens to allow the judge or the jury and the litigators to create a clear context on a suspected crime. This paper explores the implications of the Fourth Amendment and other laws central to its application focusing on arrests, collecting evidence, and presenting in courts for judgment in the bad boyfriend case.
Private citizens have a right to deny law enforcement, as a representative of the government, entry into their property. This is because the property is considered private, and the U.S. Constitution guarantees its citizens privacy, freedoms and liberty. However, this is only applicable if the police officers do not have warrants. Any form of entry, without a warrant, in which the private residence owner has not given explicit rights will be deemed unconstitutional. In Bivens V. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); six federal urgent forcefully entered into Bivens property and conducted an unreasonable search and seizure. The supreme court determined an implied cause of actions to redress the actions of the police. An implied cause of actions mainly means that the deprived party could sue for their violation of the fourth amendment, although no federal statute and laws authorize the suit (Friedenthal et al., 2013). On the contrary, a probable cause could work to guarantee a forceful entry.
Still, in probable cause cases, police must obtain a warrant from the courts to gain access to the private property. In this regard, Bruinsma et al., (2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online) identify that police need to have probable cause and believe that the place or person in question is believed to have committed a crime. In the case of United States v. Boyd, 407F. Supp. 693 (1976) and the United States v. Rohrig, 98F.3d 1506, 1522 (6th Cir. 1996), where police responded to serious nuisance and missing person alerts, respectively. Forced entry, without warrants, was suspended temporarily through the Community Caretaking Doctrine (CC). Bruinsma et al. (2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online) identify that the CC is intended for any other actions but criminal investigations. As such, aspects such as retrieving police firearm and investigation of burglary reported to be in progress may similarly be granted special treatment as was with Commonwealth v. Bates, 548N.E. 2d 889 (1989) and Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) respectively (Bruinsma et al., 2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online). This does not count in the case of Bad Boyfriend.
In the “Case of the Bad Boyfriend”, police sighted an unusual nuisance that provoked the police to intrude, search, seize and arrest both Linda and Joe. In comparison, they may state that they were compelled by the unusual noise to make the forceful unwarranted intrusion into Linda’s private property, warranted by the CC. Additionally, there were no exigent circumstances to motivate the police to make the arrest. The law identifies that exigent circumstances expressively lead the police to believe that the suspect is destroying the evidence or fleeing or planning to flee from arrest. This was not the case, as Linda and Joe were in the house, and all the evidence was found intact. Neither Joe nor Linda were planning on destroying the alleged evidence as they were caught unawares. It is also worthy to note that the police were also camping outside his house conducting a criminal investigation already and, as such, critically compromising the whole premise of the arrest. The Fourth amendment place greater limitation on police and other legal entities from entering any private properties and conducting searches. Siegel and Worrall (2018: 2024 – Write My Essay For Me | Essay Writing Service For Your Papers Online) indicate that it also covers criminal suspects and limits what police can do to catch criminals or acquire evidence.
However, an arrest under probable cause can happen with or without a warrant. In this case, police officers were justified to place Joe and Linda on the arrest. On the contrary, all arrests are seizures. Thus, police need to satisfy all the requirements, as expressively stated in the fourth amendment. This includes the provision of a warrant. Without the warrant, all collected evidence will not be admissible before the court (Crain et al., 2019: 2024 – Online Assignment Homework Writing Help Service By Expert Research Writers). This is referred to as the exclusionary rule. It shows that all evidence of cocaine and the packing equipment obtained before unconstitutionally will not prove guilt as they are admissible before the courts. All evidence collected unconstitutionally, directly or indirectly, should not be included in admission for trial. The evidence will be deemed unconstitutional before the courts, and the arrest will, as such, be subsequently suppressed. An unlawful arrest has no significance in the proceeding future criminal prosecutions.

References
Bruinsma, Gerben, and David Weisburd. (2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal
Justice. Springer Reference: ISBN 978-1-4614-5690-2 (Ebook).
Crain, M. A., Hopwood, W. S., Gendler, R. S., Young, G. R., & Pacini, C.
(2019: 2024 – Online Assignment Homework Writing Help Service By Expert Research Writers). Essentials of forensic accounting. John Wiley & Sons.
Friedenthal, J. H., Miller, A. R., Sexton, J. E., & Hershkoff, H. (2013). Civil procedure:
Cases and materials. West Academic Publishing.
Siegel, Larry J, and John L Worrall. (2018: 2024 – Write My Essay For Me | Essay Writing Service For Your Papers Online) Introduction to Criminal Justice. 16th ed., Cengage

Order | Check Discount