Legal Police Searches Essay, Research Paper

The Torahs of the United States can be difficult to understand sometimes. The Fourth Amendment states that people have a right non to be searched without a sensible warrant and that people have a right to experience secure in their places. There are Acts of the Apostless giving constabulary permission to make what of all time they need to to maintain rummies off the streets. There are besides regulations and ordinances, sort of like a athleticss game, and, merely like games, there are ever ways to acquire around these regulations. Like happening it legal to randomly stop autos to give people breathalyzer trials, or come ining people & # 8217 ; s places and seeking for things without a warrant. Unlike a game nevertheless, the consequences of traveling around these regulations can sometimes be lay waste toing. Police may destroy a place seeking to happen drugs or some other illegal thing. Where do we pull the line? What does the Constitution let us to make? In today & # 8217 ; s universe, 25,000 people per twelvemonth dice because of intoxicant. One of those people happened to be a boy of Marion Stokes. After that incident, Marion Stokes created MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving. She is strongly against driving under the influence and believes it is an first-class thought to randomly stop autos to administrate breathalyser trials. The inquiry still remains, does indiscriminately halting autos brake the Torahs of the Constitution? Should we allow this go on? The Fourth Amendment does protect people from being violated without a warrant. However, the Primary Act gives permission to the constabulary to make what they need to acquire more rummy drivers off the streets. Most people would hold that indiscriminately halting autos to prove for rummy drivers falls in that class. For that ground, I believe constabulary should hold the right to halt autos

for the testing. I don’t think that people should get mad at the government if they pass the law because it is there to help them. If the people getting stopped aren’t drunk, well, what’s the problem? Why do they need to get mad? They aren’t the ones getting arrested. Police are here to see that common people follow the laws. One day, not too long ago, police came into Dollree Map’s house without a search warrant and trashed it, looking for a bomb suspect. Finding nothing to that affect, the police realized they had the wrong house, but during their search for the suspect, they found some “obscene material.” They arrested Map because of that. Map went to court and appealed. In the end, justice had been served because the “material” the police obtained was illegally obtained, making the case end. The rule that saved Map was the Exclusionary Rule stating that anything police find that does not have anything to do with what the search warrant says has to be excluded from the case. The question here is should people allow police to go into their homes and search for whatever they want without a warrant? The answer is no. First of all, when the police do come to a house, they don’t just politely knock and wait for somebody to answer. They break down the door and make a mess of the house. If people are innocent, why should they have to get their door knocked down and their house messed up? If police did find anything, they couldn’t use it anyway because of the Exclusionary Rule. The Fourth Amendment states that people have a right not to be searched unless there is a search warrant describing what they are being searched for. Who gives people the right to break the laws and amendments we’ve had for years?