Law: Why do people think the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for every search?

Question

It has never been held to require a warrant in all circumstances, for better or worse.

Should it?

Do people know enough about their own governing documents?

Answer 1

Hey, I spent almost a whole semester in law school studying the 4th Amendment. You can't expect a lay person to know all the intricacies.
Why do people think that they have to have their Miranda rights read to them at the time of their arrest? They don't, unless the cops want to start "custodial interrogation."
Why do people think that court is dramatic, and almost all cases go to trial? They don't -- even in the criminal area, somwhere around 93% of all cases plead out.
It's because that's what we see in the media, and that's the little bit of information we get about the process. But good for America to know that those things exist to begin with.

(And interesting that ALL of the people above are providing incorrect information. A warrant is not required for "unreasonable" searches (if that were the case, the magistrate would find it unreasonable and not issue a warrant). What the fourth amendment itself requires is that all WARRANTS be supported by probable cause. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to include the "reasonableness" requirement, and have provided a number of "exceptions" to the warrant requirement. AND there are some times that an officer can stop you on the street and pat you down. This is called a "Terry" stop, which allows an officer to pat down for weapons while talking if he has a reasonable suspicion that you're armed and dangerous and about to committ a crime.)
So my point exactly -- this is a legal matter, filled with intracacies. We're pretty lucky that people know anything about this at all.

Answer 2

Too many people believe everything they see on "Law and Order" and don't take the time to learn about the law itself.

I think that not every search should require a warrant. If the cops are at the door and can smell marijuana smoke outside, they should be able to search without waiting for a judge. Just an example! But there are a lot of times where the circumstances themselves are ample justification for a warrantless search. Another example: if a driver is weaving all over the road, that is probable cause--- the police can search the car for alcohol and drugs. If they find a gun, they can use it as evidence in other charges.

And, no, many people do not know enough about their governing documents!

Answer 3

Why do people who ask questions on here GENERALIZE so shamelessly?

The Fourth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to protect citizens from its government overstepping its authority and raiding people's homes or businesses for no reason. This is what is meant by "Unreasonable Search and Seizure". Unfortunately, this only covers GOVERNMENT entities from entering your property for no reason. PRIVATE security can and will search you and your belongings at a concert or other public venue, because when you buy that ticket, the back of the ticket STATES you give them the authority to search you and your stuff.

Two examples of when a warrant is not needed:
1. You shoot someone in front of a cop, then run into your house. The cop does not need a warrant to follow you in and arrest you.
2. Sobriety checkpoints on public streets (this I dont agree with, but it's been declared legal to do and until someone gets nailed who has the money to fight it, this is the way things will remain).

Answer 4

Get a No Cost Background Check Scan at https://bitly.im/aNBkx

Its a sensible way to start. The site allows you to do a no cost scan simply to find out if any sort of data is in existence. A smaller analysis is done without cost. To get a detailed report its a modest payment.

You may not realize how many good reasons there are to try and find out more about the people around you. After all, whether you're talking about new friends, employees, doctors, caretakers for elderly family members, or even significant others, you, as a citizen, have a right to know whether the people you surround yourself with are who they say they are. This goes double in any situation that involves your children, which not only includes teachers and babysitters, but also scout masters, little league coaches and others. Bottom line, if you want to find out more about someone, you should perform a background check.

Answer 5

It only requires a warrant for unreasonable searhc and seazure. This is a good way to have it be. If you are not committing a crime why worry about it?

People do not know about their government and their documents is because they depend upon the mainstream (drive-by) media who does not tell you everything that you need to know; just that which they want to to know. Please for an American to do their own research is like asking a man in America to give birth to a child...

Answer 6

it only prohibits irrelevant and uncalled for searches. so for all the people who go to a basketball game an claim it is a violation of their rights for their bags to be searched- its not. if you werent in a private place (paying money to enter) and were just walking down a public street, you couldnt be searched unless there was reasonable evidence to suspect you of something.

Answer 7

it means that a choose should be confident that there is sturdy reason to have self assurance you dedicated a criminal offense until now the police could make a seek. without warrant, police might desire to seek for contraband first and report expenses later.

Answer 8

I blame it on television.