What Is the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment?

What is the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?

Southern New Hampshire University

Cecilio Martin Ponce

        The Fourth amendment of the constitution of the united states implies the people have to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issue, but upon probable cause (Billofrights.org, 2018). These civil liberties are emplaced for the citizens to live without fear of law enforcement wrong doing. The expectation of privacy to conduct personal affairs without fear of been infringed upon by law enforcement. Once law enforcement has identified the need to conduct surveillance or reconnaissance on you as a subject, it would be suggesting you are part of a judicial investigation and the justice system will apply all applicable laws in their effort to prosecute. In the united states warrants are issued only by judges or magistery after reviewing an application from a law enforcement agent. There are three applications behind the fourth amendment which suggest the government should not be allowed to search without some substantial justification, or reason to believe the place or thing being search contains the evidence being sought. Searches particularly of private homes, should not go beyond their justification. Finally, the government should not use blanket warrants to evade the first two principles. Law enforcement officer who conduct overt and covert operations must drive their operation within the parameters of the law in order to have a successful prosecution.

        As a surveillance or reconnaissance plan is drafted, law enforcement and government agencies must ensure investigators do not infringe civil liberties of defendants during the investigative process. The surveillance plans submitted for this particular suspected terrorist plot, suggest the use of global position device on a targeted vehicle in order to allow law enforcement the ability to track and interdict the vehicle or suspects prior to the act. In January 2012 in the United Stated v. Antoine Jones it was established that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before physically attaching a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s vehicle. The application was established that in order to for a device to be installed it involved physical intrusion on a suspect’s vehicle. In order to place a GPS tracking device on the white international 1999 truck, law enforcement most provide probable cause it will be used in a crime. The intelligence gathered from the fusion cells address this issue clearly. They suggest to investigators this vehicle will be using to stored, transport and deliver the explosive material needed to carry out a terrorist attack at the Hoover Dam. The GPS device can provide investigators real time data and may lead law enforcement to additional suspect or evidence.

        An additional request was placed for reconnaissance on the suspects and the suspected vehicle.  The reconnaissance plan request audio devices be placed in the vehicle to record and intercept all verbal communication taking place inside the 1999 white international truck used by Adam Gadahn. The term electronic reconnaissance is acknowledged to include car tapping. This is commonly used when the ac of a serious crime is suspected. Serious crime shall mean conduct constituting an offence punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or a more serious penalty. In this reconissance plan it is not suggested to wiretap the suspect phone. In Riley v. California (2014) it was ruled the specific content of a phone constitute personal information deserving protection from unwarranted disclosure. If the device is place on the vehicle that is suspected to be used. All communication intercepted inside by any occupant will be subject to be used during a judicial hearing.