Lily Heller Zierra Lyons
Chris Rojo Osman Satar
We the People Essay # 2 The fourth amendment prohibits the unlawful searches and seizures of the American public. It enables the people the right to ensure that they have privacy and are able to maintain the protection of themselves from the government. Although there are restrictions and ways that allow officers and law enforcement to use their discretion of authority, the public will always have the Constitutional right to maintain and practice their right to privacy from the government.
Each person has their own opinion about this amendment, but according to Justice Brandeis, he believes that “The makers of our Constitution... conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone­ the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by the by the civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the
Fourth Amendment.” In layman's terms the Justice is stating that to the American people, the fourth amendment is the most important. In contradiction to the Justice, our beliefs as a group, do not support his opinion. We sustain that in our research and our own interpretations we have unanimously agreed that the bill of rights­the constitution, in a whole is vital, and equally important to the American public protecting our founding fathers views on everyone's ["God"] given rights.
From the Magna Carta, in 1215, to the Constitution all of the rights created were made with the same purpose­ to protect the people in both eras. The Magna Carta was written by the nobles in order to regulate the crown's powers over the people. Under this "contract", signed by
King John, it states that the property of the people and businesses cannot be seized without a

warrant. As well as that people could not be searched without reasonable purpose, from the discretion of the law enforcement. In order to get around this clause, King John created such warrants as the writ of assistance and the general warrant. A writ of assistance was a warrant that allowed the crown to search and seize property of anyone at any time, if under any suspicion of the law enforcement. A general warrant gave the ability to search and seize anything from businesses if they were suspect to any illegal aid, barter or trade under the crown, or spoke of the king in ill terms. Luckily the founding fathers in 1791 decided to get rid of these clauses and created the provision that is the fourth amendment that we know today. Without this decision, people would not have as much freedom dealing with privacy and unreasonable searches and seizures. We would not have the warrants that are issued today. These are much more fair to the people because they limit the power of the government by making probable cause a necessity in order to search and seize people and property.

Probable cause is a must have in every case; warrants are not. Even though warrants are

necessary in order to legally search and seize one’s self or property, officers can be upheld to exceptions; enabling them to use their discretion. Whereas in cases that someone is in probable danger, they are able to make arrests. Also allowing them to search and seize without approved warrants. In some exclusionary cases, officers have searched or seized person[s] and property without a passed warrant and without probable cause.
Terry v. Ohio was a case brought to the
Supreme Court’s attention in 1968. It’s verdict allowed police officers to stop and search suspects without probable cause. This category was later extended in
Minnesota v. Dickerson
(1993)
. Its verdict stated that police officers may also seize contraband, not just weapons; as long as it is obvious through the accused’s clothing. Though the amendments cannot be changed, the

interpretations