Criminal Policy Paper
Carolyn Waddell

Not long ago, in the country of England, their personal liberties of the English people were constantly being abused in the judicial systems established there. The people of England found that these violations were not fair and could not do anything about it, at that time. The abuse of , the personal liberties of the English people continued with the migration to the “New World”, now known as the United States of America, then known as the first colonies. Their needed to be a change in the policies and procedures of the courts and policing officers. The United States Constitution was formed by the founding fore-fathers of this country, including the first president of the United States, George Washington. The Amendments to the Constitution soon followed earning the first ten amendments the title of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights dealt with the injustices to the people of this country which could be traced back to the early days of England. The fourth, fifth and sixth amendments dealt with the issues surrounding the courts and the policing officers. These amendments gave the citizens some protection from the agencies of the courts and the police. The abuse of power that had taken place within these agencies, in England would come to an abrupt stop with the advent of the Bill of Rights and the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments, in particular (U.S. Constitution Study Guide, 2013). The fourth amendment dealt primarily with the protection of the people to be secure with their persons, papers, houses and personal effects. This protection would include guidelines that the courts and policing officers would have to be followed in the search and seizure of all of the above. These policies would have to be followed by the police and courts and were guaranteed by law. Policies regarding the need for warrants were implemented. A warrant was needed, in most cases, in order for the police and the courts to search a person, their place, and their effects. In instances where a person is required to allow the courts or police officers to search themselves, their dwellings, remove blood, urine or fingerprints, seize any belongings or hold an individual for a crime committed for longer than 48 hours, a warrant or probable cause is needed. Holding a person for a period longer than forty-eight hours constitutes a violation of the fourth amendment. There are some exceptions to this rule which include and immediate emergency, however the law is supported by case law, County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 670 (91). Another violation of the fourth amendment includes the extraction of blood from a defendant who has not consented to such. The act of penetrating the skin of a defendant infringes on a violation of his or her rights. Again, there is case law to substantiate this violation in the case of Skinner v. Railway labor Executives’ Association, 489 U.S. 602, 16 (’89) and the case of Scmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 67 (’66). The fourth amendment also protects citizens from illegal searches and seizures. “Unreasonable searches of citizen’s property and the seizure of any of the same property is prohibited by law. There are exceptions to these types of cases where probable cause is required. The governing laws of this country state that an exception would include if the intrusion is minimal. All of this is substantiated by case law as well, Michigan State Police Department v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 (’90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (’68). The taking of fingerprints, without the permission of a defendant is also not permissible. The law of privacy is violated when fingerprint evidence is extracted without permission. Probable cause or suspicion is needed for fingerprint taking as stated in case law, Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 813-18 (’85); davisv. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-28 (’69). Another of the violations of the fourth