Changes

=== Fourth Amendment ===

=== Fourth Amendment ===

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of people and their personal property.  Because all criminal prosecutions, state and federal, require gathering evidence, nearly all criminal cases implicate whether government officials (the police) had the right to gather the information.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of people and their property.  Because all criminal prosecutions, state and federal, require gathering evidence, nearly all criminal cases implicate whether government officials (the police) had the right to gather the evidence.

Search warrants the basic way that government officials obtain the right to search personal belongings.  But search warrants are time-consuming to obtain (a judge needs to review and sign one), and first requires a proof of probable cause of wrongdoing in order to obtain one.  Often searches or interrogations are done without obtaining a warrant first.  And when a search warrant is obtained, it can still be challenged based on whether it was validly obtained, or whether the actual search exceeded the scope of the warrant.

Search warrants are the basic way that government officials obtain the right to search personal belongings.  But search warrants are time-consuming to obtain (a judge needs to review and sign one), and they first require proof of probable cause of wrongdoing in order to obtain one.  Often searches or interrogations are done without obtaining a warrant first.  And when a search warrant is obtained, it can still be challenged based on whether it was validly obtained, or whether the actual search exceeded the scope of the warrant.

Often knowledge about the Fourth Amendment can make the difference between being sent to jail for years, or not being arrested at all.  If a cop stops a teenager who is carrying a backpack, does the police officer have a right to search the backpack?  If the teenager grants consent to the cop to search his backpack, then that ends the matter, and some cops are clever in obtaining consent.  But if the teenager knows his Fourth Amendment rights and refuses to consent to search his backpack, then the cop will probably not search it because of the Fourth Amendment.  If there is something illegal in that backpack, then that exercise of Fourth Amendment rights by the teenager can mean the difference between going to jail and never being arrested.

Knowledge about the Fourth Amendment can make the difference between being sent to jail for years, or not being arrested at all.  If a cop stops a teenager who is carrying a backpack, does the police officer have a right to search the backpack?  If the teenager grants consent to the cop to search his backpack, then that ends the matter, and some cops are clever in obtaining consent.  But if the teenager knows his Fourth Amendment rights and refuses to consent to search his backpack, then the cop will probably not search it because of the Fourth Amendment.  If there is something illegal in that backpack, then that exercise of Fourth Amendment rights by the teenager can mean the difference between going to jail and never being arrested.

The U.S. Supreme Court decides only about 75 cases each year, but more than 10% of those cases decide or rely on Fourth Amendment cases.  In the last Term of the U.S. Supreme Court, eleven of its decisions mention the Fourth Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court decides only about 75 cases each year, but more than 10% of those cases concern the Fourth Amendment.  In the last Term of the U.S. Supreme Court, eleven of its decisions mentioned the Fourth Amendment.

In the last Term the Court was sharply divided over whether police could secretly attach a GPS monitoring device to a suspect's car without a search warrant, and thereby monitor his movements by computer.  The police could track exactly where the suspect went every day and night.  Do you think the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted to protect against this government action, when done without obtaining a search warrant?

In the last Term the Court was sharply divided over whether police could secretly attach a GPS monitoring device to a suspect's car without a search warrant, and thereby monitor his movements electronically.  The police could track exactly where the suspect went every day and night.  Do you think the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted to protect against this government action, when done without first obtaining a search warrant?

In another case we discussed earlier this year, in which New Jersey Governor Chris Christie felt compelled to "commute" (lift) the 7 year prison sentence of a man (Brian Aitken) for having a gun in the trunk of his car, which he lawfully owned in Colorado before moving here, there was a Fourth Amendment issue of whether the police properly searched his trunk without his consent and without a search warrant.

In a case we discussed earlier, in which New Jersey Governor Chris Christie felt compelled to "commute" (lift) the 7-year prison sentence of a man (Brian Aitken) for having a gun in the trunk of his car, which he lawfully owned in Colorado before moving here, there was a Fourth Amendment issue of whether the police properly searched his trunk without his consent and without a search warrant.

When a search is done in violation of the Fourth Amendment, then the evidence obtained is declared inadmissible against the defendant in a criminal case.  This is the "exclusionary rule," which is unique to the American justice system.  It has resulted in many cases of guilty defendants being freed.  Indeed, not only is the evidence excluded from trial, but all other evidence discovered based on the illegally seized evidence is excluded too.  In the 1970s and 1980s, this was often criticized for interfering with the prosecution of defendants known to be guilty.

When a search is done in violation of the Fourth Amendment, then the evidence obtained is declared inadmissible against the defendant in a criminal case.  This is the "exclusionary rule," which is unique to the American justice system.  It has resulted in many cases of criminals being freed.  Indeed, not only is the evidence excluded from trial, but all other evidence discovered based on the illegally seized evidence is excluded too.  In the 1970s and 1980s, this was often criticized for interfering with the prosecution of defendants known to be guilty.

But today the United States has far more people in jail than any other nation in the world, including communist countries.  Prison sentences in the United States are typically much longer than anywhere else in the world, at taxpayer expense.  20-year sentences for non-violent crimes are increasingly common in America.  Massive billion-dollar prison systems are repeatedly being built, often to house  defendants who pose no threat to society.  In Florida earlier this year, a woman was sentenced to 20 years in jail for merely firing a warning shot against her husband.<ref>http://flcourier.com/2012/07/19/a-march-for-marissa/</ref>  Prisons became so overcrowded in California that the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the State to start releasing thousands of prisoners.

But today the United States has far more people in jail than any other nation in the world, including communist countries.  Prison sentences in the United States are typically much longer than anywhere else in the world, at taxpayer expense.  20-year sentences for non-violent crimes are increasingly common in America.  Massive billion-dollar prison systems are repeatedly being built, often to house  defendants who pose no threat to society.  In Florida earlier this year, a woman was sentenced to 20 years in jail for merely firing a warning shot against her husband.<ref>http://flcourier.com/2012/07/19/a-march-for-marissa/</ref>  Prisons have become so overcrowded in California that the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the State to start releasing thousands of prisoners.

== Federal Cases ==

== Federal Cases ==