Search and Seizure

"A Legitimate Expectation Of Privacy." but at the same time the school has to protect the students and faculty.

Absolutely not. They can only confiscate the types of items outlined in the search warrant, as long as nothing else criminally possessed was found while searching the house.

my classmate's mother makes $76/hr on the internet. She has been without a job for 8 months but last month her pay was $7337 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read this site http://goo.gl/5kjiI

1. Your person. 2. Home. 3. Car. 4. Eavesdropping.

Okay, so this is what I got from it, and I'm studying Constitutional Law. The Fourth Amendment covers unlawful searches and seizures. However, the amendment is differed in the situation of security guards. As far as I am aware, the Fourth Amendment does not pertain to private security guards (such as mall cops). So in short: the Fourth applies to police, but not private security.

Rather a few I'd say. For a very brief start, the 4th Amendent deals with "due process of law." The US government, is structured in a tripartite format: Judicial, Executice and Legislative. Due process has always been based on a set of checks and balances, wherein law enforcement (Executive Branch) is overseen by the Judicial branch (the courts). After 9/11, much legislation, spearheaded by the PATRIOT Act, allowed for searches to be initiated, approved and enacted solely by Law Enforcement, without any judicial oversite whatsoever, and without later recourse to the judicial system (e.g. if your house is raided under the auspices of an Administrative Letter from a branch of law enforcement, enacted "in good faith" (with no further legal test) stating that a search must be performed for "matters of National Security", as defined by the author and without further explanation or justification, you have no recourse in the courts if you feel th4e search was illegal. Many law enforcement agencies, however, avoid this shortcut approach to search as seizure, as there is clearly a Constitutional issue here, that may adversly affect the court's interpretation of the search.). Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay) highlighted other challenges to the 4th Amendment in that, if a subject was declared as a "terrorist", purely by fiat, they fell between the cracks, neither having access to the 4th Amendment, the American Military Code, or the World Court Tribunal,s dicta. Many were held without access to any legal representation, which flies in the face of the 4th Amendment (whether or not they're military). Justifications were given for this, but these justifications indicated why they were suspending actions required under the Fourth. It bears noting that we don't really have a fully functional, legal definition of a "terrorist" at this time, and are not likely to obtain one in the near future. My attorney informs me that, in most cases, changes since 9/11 pretty much abrogate most if not all of your protections under the 4th Amendment, and threats to the entire Bill of Rights except the Third exist. I fear he was accurate.

A Search Warrant is 1 document

An Arrest Warrant is 1 document.

There is no document that allows both.

The fourth amendment protects you from both , so if someone brakes into your house with a gun ask them if they have a warrent =]

The policies regarding search and seizure on college campuses are that police officers have to have a search warrent from a judge before they can search someone.

standing

Yes but only if you have been caught before

There is no right of search and seizure. In the US, it is prevented by the 4th amendment.

See below link:

USA Patriot Act

Most commonly, any direct or derivative evidence resulting from the improper search would not be allowed at trial.

The 4th Amendment was a response to the British government tactics prior to the Revolution. There was a general idea that homes in Britain were "a man's castle"- but not so with homes in the Colonies, which were specifically exempt from that concept. Officials would often get "general warrants" to search any homes at any time for any reason. It especially bothered businessmen, who would be harassed by tax officials.

The 4th Amendment was intended to codify that the government couldn't just search your home and your "stuff" without a good reason. Government officials are supposed to go to a judge and convince him to issue a warrant, which is a legal document specifying what they are allowed to search.

Yes. Your status places you in "constructive possession" of anything within the vehicle interior that you could reach.

no they do not have to show you all they need is the search warrant. But what you should have done is to see the warrant. Sorry

The New Jersey v TLO ruling limits the Fourth Amendment rights of students by stating that only a reasonable suspicion is required for a school official to search a student. Probable cause is a stronger standard for a search than a reasonable suspicion. By:Miltorious Britton

C

the fourth amendment is one of americas most valuable amendment because it gave americans the right to have sex how ever and when ever.

Okay.. I don't really know what the Fourth Amendment has to do with sex at all. the Fourth Amendment is about Search and Seizures. About knowing your person, your house, your belongings can't be searched without reason.

In short. Yes. You don't have a right to probation or parole and therefore may be required to agree to waive your 4th amendment rights as a condition of probation or parole. That is common in many states.

Under the Constitution, which is the law of the land in the USA, Search and Seizure is legal when the police have received a search warrant normally signed by a local judge. There are some situations, depending on the jurisdiction (where the search takes place) in which the police don't require a search warrant signed by a judge.

The "exclusionary rule" was first developed in Mapp v. Ohio. If there was an illegal search/seizure, any evidence obtained as a direct result of that action is "the fruit of the poisonous tree" and should be excluded. However, the USSC has progressively weakened the fourth amendment protections available to criminal defendants, and most cases fall into an exception of some type, allowing the evidence in.