Constitutional Policing
We all live within a society that is interlaced with fair and nondiscriminatory laws. These laws were formed to help us sustain a solid framework for civilized society free of crime. While these laws are placed to keep us within our moral means law enforcement has their own law they must follow. These laws are formed through case law, the Constitution, and amendments. One such set of standards or laws for law enforcement is that of constitutional searches and seizures that are performed by law enforcement in United States. Over years case law has formed dictating what is proper and legal for constitutional search and seizure (Wright, 2012). In this report I will review three such cases that help change and guide our current law structure for proper search and seizure.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, (Leming, 1993), 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 seized.” - The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Most people are aware law-enforcement need a warrant to enter their homes but are they aware that the same constitutional rights that are awarded to them to keep law-enforcement from warrantless search of their homes also protects from search of themselves, their belongings, or businesses? I believe that very few are aware of what they are protected from or who. Additionally, I believe there's very few that can even state what amendment actually protects them.
The amendment, which was, previously discussed, is the fourth amendment of the Constitution. However, we will be discussing the cases with help law enforcement and Society better understand the fourth amendment.
Weeks V. United States (1914)
What is the main issue or question involved in the case?
The case of Fremont Weeks V. United States is extremely interesting...