The Fourth amendment of the United States should continually exist to protect the people, by the people, and for the people. This amendment should not change in its virtue.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States should continually exist to protect the people, by the people, and for the people. This amendment should not change in its virtue. Everyone in the United States should always feel safe and protected. People should be allowed to live the way they are use to in their homes. They should not be afraid that they are being watched according to their race, sexual origin, or religious beliefs. Police brutality and unauthorized police arrests violet the fourth amendment and searches without proper warrants dismiss the availability of evidence to be admissible in court. Much profiling of people continues in the United States and police brutality continues as a part of it.
The Fourth Amendment protects Americans form illegal searches and seizures by all government officials. While conservatives disagree with the fourth amendment I tend to agree that it is necessary and important for an American’s sense of well-being.
“Much of the modern debate about the enforcement of the Fourth Amendment has focused on the wisdom of and constitutional necessity for the so-called exclusionary rule, under which evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is ordinarily inadmissible in a criminal trial. Conservatives often oppose the rule as not grounded in the Constitution, not a deterrent to police misconduct, and not helpful in the search for truth. Abolishing the exclusionary rule has been a high priority for conservatives for more than 30 years. When Republicans gained control of Congress in 1995, they immediately set their sights on the exclusionary rule. Although that “reform” effort did not succeed, it is likely that similar efforts may resurface” (Lynch, T.).
“The drive to abolish the exclusionary rule is fundamentally misguided, on constitutional grounds, for the rule can and should be justified on separation-of-powers principles, which conservatives generally support. When agents of the executive branch (the police) disregard the terms of search warrants, or attempt to bypass the warrant-issuing process altogether, the judicial branch can and should respond by “checking” such misbehavior. The most opportune time to check such unconstitutional behavior is when prosecutors attempt to introduce illegally seized evidence in court. Because the exclusionary rule is the only effective tool the judiciary has for preserving the integrity of its warrant-issuing authority, any legislative attempt to abrogate the rule should be declared null and void by the Supreme Court”(Lynch, T.).