My right to privacy at home, in my car, and in my emails is one of the fundamental rights that protect who I am as a person. One of the amendments that present this right is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The definition of the Fourth Amendment is very simple: it prohibits the act of unreasonable searches and seizures. Or, as the United States Constitution states, the people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This right limits the power of the police to seize and search our homes and property information. A warrant, issued by a magistrate, judge or officer of the Supreme Court, is required for a law enforcement officer to conduct a search of a person, their location or vehicle. At the time of the American Revolution, the Fourth Amendment was proposed by James Madison in 1789. The amendment was born out of the Revolutionary War and the colonists' struggle against British rule. Its historical roots date back to the English “my home is my castle” tradition, where the king's officer's authority was limited to entering people's homes and making arrests. King George introduced the use of “deeds of assistance”, appropriately worded. These were legal search warrants that were very broad and obscure in detail. British officers could receive a “writ of assistance” to examine any grounds they believed might contain contraband. They could enter someone's property or home without warning and without any reason. Officers were allowed to question anyone about their assets and force anyone's agreement. These types of searches and seizures became commonplace in the colonies, but over time the colonists became furious. The United States Congress proposed the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. On March 1, 1792, the Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, announced the passage of the amendment. After independence, the Fourth Amendment was interpreted in its most original meaning: as a way to keep the government in check from seizing or searching a person or their property without a warrant. To avoid abuse of power and violation of the Fourth Amendment by providing overly general reasons for a search warrant and by allowing low-ranking officials to issue warrants, the United States Constitution requires the presence of a certain level of authority and a legitimate purpose. The Fourth Amendment states that “no warrant shall issue, except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The search or seizure must have been approved by a judge, given strong preliminary evidence of illegal activity. While a warrant is theoretically required before the police can search, there are acceptable exemptions. A warrantless search is permitted if the purpose of the search follows the officer's reason to believe that contraband or other evidence can be destroyed or discarded before a search warrant can be issued. On the other hand, there are consequences for a search without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1950s that if the police seize evidence without a warrant, it will be considered an illegal search, and therefore the evidence will not be admitted into court and even though the defendant may be guilty, the court must let him act without crime and ignore illegally obtained evidence. This is itcalled the “exclusion rule”. An example of this is the case of Georgia v. Randolph. “Scott Randolph was arrested for drug possession after police found cocaine in his home. The police did not have a warrant to search the house, but Randolph's wife consented to the search. However, Randolph was also present at the time of the search and resisted the police request. At trial, his lawyer argued that the search was unconstitutional due to Randolph's objection, while the prosecution argued that his wife's consent was sufficient. The trial court ruled in favor of the prosecution, but the appeals court and the Georgia Supreme Court both sided with Randolph, holding that a search is unconstitutional if a resident objects, even if a other resident agrees. No. In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to the search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. Justice David Souter, in the majority opinion, likened the reasonableness of such a search to a more casual interaction. Souter wrote: "It is fair to say that someone calling at the door of a shared premises would not have confidence that an occupant's invitation was a good enough reason to enter when another tenant was standing there saying, 'Stay out.'" Good reason, no sane person would enter under those conditions. A police search under such circumstances, Souter wrote, would therefore not satisfy the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement." However, there are other exceptions, such as the need for officers to follow certain rules as well if they receive a warrant. One of these rules is the knock and announce rule. This rule forces police officers to execute a search warrant without immediately forcing entry into a person's residence. Instead, he or she must first knock at that person's door, identify themselves and their intention. They also have to wait a moderate amount of time for residents to let them into their residence. The Supreme Court has held that the “beat and announce” rule is part of a judge's hearing as to whether a search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This is demonstrated in the case of Hudson v. Mitchell: “Booker T. Hudson was convicted of drug and firearm possession in state court after police found cocaine and a gun in his home. The police had a search warrant but did not comply with the Fourth Amendment's “knock and announce” rule that requires police officers to wait 20 to 30 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence before entering the home. The trial judge ruled that the evidence found in the house could therefore not be used, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed based on two Michigan Supreme Court cases that created an exception to suppression of evidence when evidence in question would inevitably have been found. No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that evidence need not be excluded when police violate the “knock and announce” rule. Justice Scalia's opinion reaffirmed the validity of both the knock-and-announce rule and the “exclusionary rule” for evidence obtained by police in most Fourth Amendment violation cases. However, the majority held that the exclusionary rule could not be invoked for evidence obtained after a knock-and-announce violation because the interests violated by the sudden entry of the police “have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence.” Justice Scalia haswritten that the “knock and announce” rule was intended to prevent violence, property damage, and privacy enforcement, not to prevent police from conducting a search for which they have a valid warrant. The Court further found that the social costs of the exclusionary rule applied to the “beat and announce” rule outweighed any possible “deterrent benefit” and that alternative measures such as civil lawsuits and internal police discipline could adequately deter violations. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. The dissent noted the Court's long history of upholding the exclusionary rule and questioned whether the precedents cited by the majority supported its conclusion. The dissent also expressed doubts that “out and out” violations could be deterred without excluding evidence obtained from searches. “Recently, the Fourth Amendment has become a hotly debated topic. After 9/11 and with the “War to terrorism,” government and media attention has focused on how and where to strike the balance between “public safety” and “individual rights” protected by the Fourth Amendment. Massive revelations were made in 2014 government spying program on nearly all American citizens In recent years, the United States has seen an escalation of “stop and frisk” acts by police, often driven by racial profiling and racial bias. There have been numerous clashes between police and citizens over searches and seizures, in which unarmed civilians have been killed during vehicle searches for refusing warrantless searches. According to statistics, most of these victims were African Americans. The issue of the government spying on its own citizens “without a warrant” has become a scandal since Edward Snowden, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contractor, leaked and revealed to the American public the extent of the government's surveillance program . As part of this total surveillance program, using sophisticated algorithms and software technologies, the federal government listened to everyone's phone conversations and observed everyone's social media chats, forcing phone companies to share customer information without their knowledge . , email, telephone conversations, and cloud storage today violate the privacy protected by the 18th century Fourth Amendment. Another problem is the rapid increase in the use of low-cost aerial surveillance technologies, such as drones, which make it easier to violate our privacy and spy on our daily lives. This technology is so easily acquired that the government, as well as ordinary people, can use it for bad intentions. However, due to the Fourth Amendment, some rules now exist, such as requiring a license or permit to film people and things in private areas. Information and not physical goods are the most precious resource today. Unlocking someone's phone data can provide access to a huge amount of people, networks and resources, and can also put hundreds and thousands of them at risk. This begs the question, “Is the Fourth Amendment still relevant today?” Does it fulfill its purpose of protecting people's privacy? Can the Fourth Amendment protect us from government intrusion and corporate surveillance? I believe the Fourth Amendment is still very relevant today and protects privacy on some level, however there are many exceptions and unresolved dilemmas. In conclusion, although life circumstances have changed over time, so has the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.