Fourth Amendment- Unreasonable Search and Seizures

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.

In my opinion,the fourth amendment prevents citizen's homes, belongings, and persons from being invaded without reason. It provides the basis that there must be some evidence that a person has committed a crime before a warrant is issued. Warrants can only be granted by a judge(oath or affirmation), and must be extremely detailed in what they allow. With out probable cause leading to a warrant, any search is considered invalid. This is a fundamental aspect of our society. If this law was not in place we would constantly live in fear of being wrongfully accused.




My Opinion: I chose this article because I of its controversial nature. I do not believe this plan is a violation of our fourth amendment rights. The police are not forcing themselves into people's houses with out warrants. They are merely asking parents for their permission to search their children's bedrooms. If the child is a minor living in their house then the parent or custodian has the legal authority in this situation. If the parent consents then I do not believe a violation has occurred. When people argue that parents can feel threatened by the police showing up at their doorstep I do not feel they have a valid claim. As citizens we have an obligation to know our rights and exercise them accordingly. If we fail to do so then that is our own problem, not that of law enforcement.


"Illegal Search and Seizure: Your Home is Still Your Castle"

The 10th Circuit Court of appeal has recently upheld the long held and cherished 4th Amendment right protecting us from illegal intrusions into our homes under illegal search and seizure law provisions in the Bill of Rights, which allows individuals to avoid self incrimination by leaving evidence of crimes found in their homes during illegal searches.

In Manzanares v. Higdon, officers came to the home of Manzanares in the investigation of a co-worker of Manzanares in a rape case. The officers arrived at Manzanares’ home at 5:50 AM in the morning.
At the outset, Manzanares was cooperative giving the police helpful information on the identity and location of the alleged rapist. For his trouble, the police continued to interrogate Manzanares. Finally, Manzanares had had enough and requested that the police leave his home. The police refused to leave. Instead they handcuffed Manzanares as they continued questioning him.

The jury in the 4th Amendment Illegal Search and Seizure suit brought by Manzanares, ruled in favor of Higdon on all counts. Manzanares filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law which was denied by the trial court. Manzanares appealed and the 10th Circuit ruled in his favor that his 4th Amendment rights were violated as a matter of law.

Search and Seizure Rights in Your Home
The officers argued that Manzanares was held as part of an investigative stop and/or to prevent Manzanares from interfering with the investigation. The Appellate Court would hear nothing of this. Central to the court’s argument is the fact that the seizure occurred in Manzanares home. Though Manzanares initially agreed to allow the police into his home, as soon as he withdrew his consent, the police were obligated to leave. Their failure to leave constituted an illegal arrest and seizure of Manzanares without probable cause.

In so ruling, the Court reiterated the long established protections of the home in stating, “ It has been clear for nearly thirty years that a warrantless entry into a home…is presumptively unreasonable. The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated the famous refrain that a man’s home is his castle and has preserved the home as the center of the Fourth Amendment’s protections.” The court stated that reasonable officers would have known that their refusal to leave upon withdrawal of consent constituted a seizure. The police had no warrant, no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, and there were no extraordinary circumstances to justify their non-consensual presence in Manzanares’ home.

The court stated and the lesson to be learned here is that as soon as consent is withdrawn for law enforcement presence in your home, the officers are bound to leave the home. Failure to do so results in an unlawful seizure under the 4th Amendment and is actionable. Your home is indeed your castle and the 10th Circuit has ruled that it will be closely guarded against unlawful intrusion, even those under the pretense of lawful police investigative activity.


My Opinion: I chose this article because of its applicability. This is a situation that could present itself to any of us. Before reading this article I was not aware that I had to right to make the police leave if I did not want them there. Now it is clear to me and makes perfect sense. If they don't have a warrant and I am not under arrest then they are trespassing if I do not want them on my property. This is something that people need to have a good grasp about in order to protect their rights.