What the Founding Fathers Probably Meant: Part 5

Amendment Four: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The fourth amendment is the first of a set of amendments which establish the basic rights and practices of the American legal system.  It basically states that, in order to maintain civil liberties, a warrant based on a solid chain of evidence must be granted by a judge before any law-enforcement body is able to begin a search for proof of a crime.

If the third amendment was a good example of how the founding fathers' worries could be somewhat short-sighted, the fourth is the perfect representation of the opposite.  It establishes, very clearly, a set of basic rights regarding search and seizure procedures that are as relevant today as they were when laid out, if not more so.  What’s more, it’s probably the best example of the way an amendment is able to grow and change with the times.

Since its inception, a number of important clarifications and additions have been made which follow in the spirit of the amendment and extend its intent within a clear and logical progression.  It also serves to show how an amendment can grow with changes in time and technology.

For instance, the concept of the fruit of the poisoned tree established that any evidence gathered as a result of illicit practices which broke the established chain of evidence, no matter how damning, were inadmissible.  It’s been argued, of course, that this put too much of a restriction on law enforcement and has given the lawyers of some very bad people procedural loopholes to get their clients off, but, while the debate over the practice may be valid, its efficacy isn’t.

As well, when technology made us able to record phone calls and personal meetings, the judicial branch began to adapt the fourth amendment to encompass those innovations.  Even today, in our courts, the emergence of the internet and the rights of privacy there are being argued in the hallowed halls of our justice system.  We have shown, time and again, then, that an amendment with the proper phrasing and spirit, can do much to preserve the rights of the citizens it’s meant to protect. 

Unfortunately, the fourth amendment is also an excellent case for how, in an organic system of legislature, lawmakers are able to subvert the clear intent of an amendment.  The Patriot Act, first established in the aftermath of 9/11, subverted in numerous ways the protection of the fourth amendment.  Though few protested then, as fear blinded them to reason and temporarily made them unwilling or unable to understand that once a right is given up, it becomes monumentally difficult to get back and opens the door to further infringement.

All told, an organic document like The Constitution is able to maintain its relevance to the society it governs as long as those who fall beneath its protections are willing to pay attention, to advocate and take a hand in its shaping.