The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution is an important addition that guarantees’ our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. It also states that no searches and seizures can be conducted without probable cause nor can any warrants be issued. This is very vague, and the term “probable cause” has been left widely un-interpreted after the ratifying of the constitution. This amendment continues to produce controversy and remains debated in our society today. What is “probable cause”? How is it determined? When did it become a factor in our early American society? What specifically is it used for?

The topic of probable cause stretches back to England in the 1600’s. The Semayne’s case in 1604 established the right of a homeowner to defend his home against unlawful entry from the king’s agents. A general warrant

Probable cause gives an officer more than the right to search or arrest. One must go before a judge and present the facts, evidence, testimony and other circumstances. The presented evidence is written on a sworn statement. The judge must then find probable cause to issue the warrant and upon signing that statement it becomes a warrant (Albanese, 2001). It is not mandatory that police obtain a warrant, but in some situations it is in their best interest to. One would be more confident going in to arrest or search with the approval and agreement of a judge.

Lacking probable cause does not necessarily leave an officer powerless. Reasonable suspicion is a notch below probable cause, but it does come with its privileges. Reason suspicion is not as stable as probable cause, nor does reasonable suspicion require a strong supportive basis. A simple reasonable belief, based on a general observation or circumstance, and possibly supported by experience, may be enough to investigate further or take minimal action. Having mere suspicion is not of much value. Mere suspicion is a hunch of instinctive feeling that something may be wrong. Mere suspicion may increase an officer’s awareness toward a person or property but it cannot be any principle for action (Bohm and Haley, 2002).

Harris vs. United States established the plain view doctrine. In the plain view doctrine, it is legal for an officer, if they are in an area which they have a legal right to be in to seize an object that is connected to a crime if it is in plain view. When a person gives an officer consent to search them or their property, police have full access. In some situations, if one person has authority over another, like parent-child, the person having authority can give police consent to search the subordinate party (Bohm & Haley, 2002). The Hester vs. United States case allowed police to conduct searches of property or field that are abandoned. The California vs. Greenwood case says that police are allowed to search garbage left outside people’s homes and if any evidence if found it may be used against the person. The New Jersey vs. T.L.O. case established that schools do not need a search warrant to search; they just need “reasonable grounds” (Patrick, Pious, Ritchie, 2000). “Reasonable grounds” is a very low standard and is only a bit stronger than mere suspicion.

Without improving in our weaknesses by expanding close surveillance we are open to possibly more devastating attacks. If closely monitoring our citizens can successfully defend us from great bloodshed, then what’s the big problem? We’ve seen how terrorists can just come into the U.S. and use the rights our government offers to cover their activities. To Ban the Patriot Act would leave the door wide open to more brutal attacks, so who in his/her right mind wants to support terrorist-sponsored death and destructing by giving terrorists a chance to operate unnoticed? The lessening of these rights will only benefit us through the detection and apprehension of violent criminals and terrorists. True innocent persons will not be affected by this act, only terrorists planning an attack or national American criminals will be affected. The end will always justify the means and a little collateral damage should not halt the future saving of thousands of lives.

Some topics in this essay:
Arbetman O’Brien, Garland Stuckey, Patriot Act, Pious Ritchie, Bohm Haley, Fourth Amendment, United Constitution, Colonial America, probable cause, , California Maryland, fourth amendment, patriot act, search warrant, reasonable suspicion, bohm haley 2002, pious ritchie, stuckey 2000, garland stuckey, garland stuckey 2000, mere suspicion, usa patriot act, usa patriot, pious ritchie 2000, patrick pious ritchie,