Difference between revisions of "Fourth Amendment"
(reformat and clean up) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''{{PAGENAME}}''' to the [[United States Constitution]] states: | The '''{{PAGENAME}}''' to the [[United States Constitution]] states: | ||
| − | {{cquote| | + | {{cquote|The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against '''unreasonable searches and seizures,''' shall not be violated, and no [[warrant]]s shall issue, but upon [[probable cause]], supported by [[oath]] or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'''}} |
==Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law)== | ==Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law)== | ||
"U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law" | "U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law" | ||
| − | "In a blow to the [[constitutional rights]] of [[citizen]]s, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled 8-1 in [[Heien v. State of North Carolina]] that [[police]] officers are permitted to violate [[American]] citizens’ Fourth Amendment | + | "In a blow to the [[constitutional rights]] of [[citizen]]s, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled 8-1 in [[Heien v. State of North Carolina]] that [[police]] officers are permitted to violate [[American]] citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “[[ignorance of the law is no excuse]],” the [[Court]] ruled that [[evidence]] obtained by police during a [[traffic stop]] that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The [[Rutherford Institute]] had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]], the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”<ref>[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-27/supreme-court-rules-police-can-violate-4th-amendment-if-they-are-ignorant-law Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law)] Accessed December 31, 2014</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{US amendments}} | {{US amendments}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==External Links== | ==External Links== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 16: | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category:Bill of Rights]] | [[Category:Bill of Rights]] | ||
[[Category:Privacy]] | [[Category:Privacy]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 20:19, January 8, 2015
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
| “ | The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. | ” |
Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law)
"U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law"
"In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”[1]
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America Bill of Rights:
1 - Freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.
2 - Right to bear arms
3 - Quartering of soldiers
4 - Warrants
5 - Due process
6 - Right to a speedy trial
7 - Right by trial of a jury
8 - No cruel or unusual punishments
9 - Unenumerated rights
10 - Power to the people and states
11 - Immunity of states to foreign suits
12 - Revision of presidential election procedures
13 - Abolition of slavery
14 - Citizenship
15 - Racial suffrage
16 - Federal income tax
17 - Direct election of the United States Senate
18 - Prohibition of alcohol
19 - Women's suffrage
20 - Terms of the presidency
21 - Repeal of Eighteenth Amendment
22 - Limits the president to two terms
23 - District of Columbia Voting for President
24 - Prohibition of poll taxes
25 - Presidential disabilities
26 - Voting age lowered to 18
27 - Variance of congressional compensation
External Links
References
- ↑ Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law) Accessed December 31, 2014