Question

(A) Describe the requirements of the Fourth Amendment with regard to search and seizure.

(B) Explain in what circumstances a law-enforcement official can conduct a search without following the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

(C) Explain how the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has evolved over time.

Answer 1

Answer: a) The officer must get a judge's warrant before conducting a search or seizure. They must have solid justification that is backed up by an oath and affirmation. Also, they must specify the area that will be searched or the items that will be confiscated.

b) When the prohibited substances are in the officer's direct line of sight, law enforcement officers are not have to adhere to the Fourth Amendment's restrictions when conducting a search. A warrant is not required for law enforcement to get evidence that is in plain view as a result of the Horton v. California ruling. As a result of Terry v. Ohio, law officers may also conduct a stop and frisk if they believe the subject is in possession of illegal narcotics.

c) The Supreme Court held in Mapp v. Ohio that any illegally obtained evidence may not be used to convict a defendant of a crime. Following this legal dispute, Terry v. Ohio determined that police have the authority to conduct a stop and frisk. Following that, Horton v. California determined that a warrant is not required for law authorities to seize unlawful substances that are in plain sight. Understanding what was necessary and how the Fourth Amendment rights were constrained led to an evolution in the Supreme Court's view.

Explanation: 2023

Answer 2

a) In order to search and seizure the officer has to obtain a warrant from a judge. They must have probable cause, supported by oath and affirmation. They must also describe the location that is to be searched or what things are to be seized.

b) Law-enforcement officials can conduct a search without following the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when the illegal substances are in plain view of the officer. As a result of the case Horton v. California, law enforcement does not need a warrant to gather evidence that is in plain view. Also, according to the results of Terry v. Ohio, law enforcement can carry out a stop and frisk if they suspect the accused has illegal substances on their person.

c) In the case Mapp v. Ohio the Supreme Court ruled that all evidence gathered illegally could not be used to convict a person of a crime. Following this court case, Terry v. Ohio decided that law enforcement have the right to carry out a stop and frisk. Then, Horton v. California decided that law enforcement does not need a warrant for illegal substances that are in plain view. The Supreme Courts interpretation evolved by realizing what is required and how the Fourth Amendment rights are limited.

Hope this helps!!

- Kay :)