Talk:Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Footnote 72
The formatting for this footnote (located here) needs to be fixed. If I knew how, I would do it myself. SMP0328. (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Done Citation can have either a "page" entry or a "pages" entry, not both. - Denimadept (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone up for a push to Featured Article?
I'm considering pouring myself into a new article. Anyone think we could get this thing to FA quality, or opinions on how far away we are?--HectorMoffet (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Let's see what the reviewer says. SMP0328. (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nominated for review. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when I think of who could best help push this into FA territory, the two editors who first come to mind are Khazar2 and GregJackP, both of whom are retired. (It's possible Greg might come out of retirement soon, but it's not certain.) Perhaps one of the WikiCup participants would be interested; an article like this should be worth a lot of bonus points in that competition. – Quadell (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I notified Wikicup and some wikiprojects and I think there's interest in push this article to FA, if ya show us what needs doing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Quadell did the GAC review last September...since then some changes have been made to the tune of 4,000 bytes. The GAC was pretty extensive. I could offer some opinions at the peer review but would prefer to do so at FAC and even there it would be just a look at the MOS and prose.--MONGO 15:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I notified Wikicup and some wikiprojects and I think there's interest in push this article to FA, if ya show us what needs doing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Footnote for border exception
The sentence: "However, searches that intrude upon a traveler's personal dignity and privacy interests, such as strip and body cavity searches, must be supported by "reasonable suspicion." has two footnotes, both of which don't seem to directly support the statement being made. A more appropriate citation, in my opinion, would come from Henderson v. US or United States v. Guadalupe-Garza. Cevanwells (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Done-- the two citations you've suggested have been added. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Citation style
To be blunt, the citations in this article aren't even close to being up to par for a featured article. The article has no established citation style, unless one considers "eclectic mish-mash" to be a style. To wit:
- There is no consistency in italicization of case names.
- There is no consistency as to whether case names are wiki-linked to their appropriate articles.
- There is no consistency as to whether the case name is even included at all in the citation. Some citations simply appear as "412 U.S. 218 (1973)", while many others include the case name.
- Where a full case citation (or some approximation thereof) has already appeared, there is no consistency in the format of abbreviated case citations. Here are a few variations:
- Dunn at 301
- Leon, at 926
- Oliver, 466 U.S. 170, 179 (1984)
- Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113 [Note: except for the missing period at the end, this comes closest to being "correct", IMHO]
- Hell, there isn't even consistency as to whether or not a citation should end with a period!
Now, I'm willing to do the work to bring some consistency to the article, but there are are apparently those who feel that this jumbled mess is quaint, saying, "Revert per WP:CITECONSENSUS: 'The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus'."
I therefore submit this post to determine whether consensus exists as to whether we should bother attempting to establish a citation style for this article. I thought that, being an article about the law that is inextricably linked to WP:SCOTUS, it should therefore follow the established citation style that is used in featured articles within the realm of WP:SCOTUS. Perhaps I'm wrong, and if so, I will yield to consensus. Thoughts? —Grollτech (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree completely with your sentiments and feel that these sorts of MOS issues are the primary reasons that this article is not yet featured article quality.....suggest your comments be moved to the featured article candidate page for further discussions.--MONGO 17:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Great! Just to be clear on some of the changes I'm about to make to the citations:
- Case names will be italicized, both in full and abbreviated case cites.
- Case name will be included and wiki-linked in full case cites (the first time the case is referenced) – one open question is whether to leave red links where no such article exists – personally, I don't have a problem with them, especially since (I believe) one goal of WP:SCOTUS is to eventually fill all of those voids.
- Abbreviated case cites will take the form of "Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113."
- Case cites will end with a period.
- I don't really intend to move entries down from the "Notes" to the "References" section, but where there might be dangling "dead" shortened footnotes (e.g., "Crisera, p. 1587"), I will replace them with
{{sfnp}}to make them clickable. - Non-SCOTUS case citations will be templated to use
{{Cite case}}. They'll still link to Google Scholar (or wherever), but without explicit attribution. - I don't intend to do anything with non-case citations (e.g. articles, journals, books, etc.) unless they are glaringly in need of fixing.
That should about cover it? —Grollτech (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Violated
I think there ought to be a section that deals with how the fourth amendment has been violated on a regular basis. John Link (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Such a section would likely become biased. Who would decide which acts count as violations? SMP0328. (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Standing in the 4th Amendment Context?
I noticed that this article makes no reference to standing to challenge 4th amendment violations, although it is mentioned very briefly in the linked Exclusionary rule article. As I understand it, standing is a pretty important 4th Amendment doctrine, and is somewhat different from the standing explained in Standing (law), so I think it warrants mention here. I could take a stab at it, but I wouldn't consider myself an expert (only being a first year law student). Blart versenwald (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Mapp v. Ohio is cited just a tiny bit incorrectly
I don't want to be mean-spirited so this is the last time I will raise the issue, but as a very regular user of Wikipedia who cares deeply about its reliability I feel compelled to voice my objection to my correction being reversed on this point.
Every legal scholar- and every Supreme Court case that has considered the history of the amendment (and the Wikipedia page on the case)- posits that Wolf v. Colorado stands for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the States through the doctrine of "selective incorporation" via the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio stands for the closely related proposition (and it is very close, so I can understand the confusion) that the FEDERALLY mandated Exclusionary Rule (that is, evidence discovered as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation cannot be admitted into evidence at trial) announced in Weeks v. United States would also be required in STATE prosecutions.
If this difference isn't important to your readers, so be it, but again I just have to tell you, hopefully politely, that the site as it stands now is wrong. I would fix it but I would be afraid of my edit being undone again or coming across as a boor. So please, I just hope someone reads this who is managing the page and at least takes a look at what I raise. 141.114.164.157 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the IP editor is correct. Wolf is a somewhat strange case, but scholars agree that the Court ruled that Fourth Amendment protections against the arbitrary invasion of privacy by police were incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. In his majority opinion, Justice Frankfurter wrote:
"The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police -- which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment -- is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in "the concept of ordered liberty," and, as such, enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause."
(Wolf, 388 U.S. at 27-28.) If you don't believe me, see this law review article at p. 498, this law review article at p. 130, and this law review article at p. 52. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)- Wolf was decided during a period when the Supreme Court repeatedly held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, but that certain rights applied to the States to the extent that right was "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty." In Wolf, the Court ruled that the privacy interest at issue applied to the States, not the Fourth Amendment. When Wolf was decided, the exclusionary rule was treated as being a requirement of the Fourth Amendment (see Weeks v. United States); this ended in United States v. Calendra (1974). So when Wolf was decided the Court held that the principles at the "core of the Fourth Amendment", but not the Fourth Amendment itself, applied to the States and so it held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the States. In Mapp, the Court changed course and held that when a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is held to apply to the States, the specific provision/amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the States to the same extent as it does against the federal government, not merely to the extent it is "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty." Because of this change in course, the Court in Mapp overruled Wolf, holding that the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule completely applied to the States. Wolf is no longer good law. Mapp is why the Fourth Amendment applies to the States and why the exclusionary rule so applies. SMP0328. (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- @SMP0328.: your characterization of Justice Frankfurter's theory of selective incorporation is correct. However, your assessment of Wolf seems to create an unnecessary distinction between (1) Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and (2) "the Fourth Amendment itself" (in your words), by which I assume you mean the full Fourth Amendment, including the exclusionary rule. I think it is certainly fair to say that the Fourth Amendment was not fully incorporated until Mapp, but scholars agree that the fundamental ("core") protections enumerated in the Fourth Amendment (against unreasonable searches and seizures) were incorporated in Wolf. See, for example, the law review articles cited in my previous comment above and this article by Richard Re at pp. 1934-35, in which he explains that Wolf incorporated the Fourth Amendment but that the Court
"considered the Due Process Clauses as a potential source of exclusionary rights, apart from the Fourth Amendment itself."
- @SMP0328.: your characterization of Justice Frankfurter's theory of selective incorporation is correct. However, your assessment of Wolf seems to create an unnecessary distinction between (1) Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and (2) "the Fourth Amendment itself" (in your words), by which I assume you mean the full Fourth Amendment, including the exclusionary rule. I think it is certainly fair to say that the Fourth Amendment was not fully incorporated until Mapp, but scholars agree that the fundamental ("core") protections enumerated in the Fourth Amendment (against unreasonable searches and seizures) were incorporated in Wolf. See, for example, the law review articles cited in my previous comment above and this article by Richard Re at pp. 1934-35, in which he explains that Wolf incorporated the Fourth Amendment but that the Court
- Wolf was decided during a period when the Supreme Court repeatedly held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, but that certain rights applied to the States to the extent that right was "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty." In Wolf, the Court ruled that the privacy interest at issue applied to the States, not the Fourth Amendment. When Wolf was decided, the exclusionary rule was treated as being a requirement of the Fourth Amendment (see Weeks v. United States); this ended in United States v. Calendra (1974). So when Wolf was decided the Court held that the principles at the "core of the Fourth Amendment", but not the Fourth Amendment itself, applied to the States and so it held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the States. In Mapp, the Court changed course and held that when a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is held to apply to the States, the specific provision/amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the States to the same extent as it does against the federal government, not merely to the extent it is "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty." Because of this change in course, the Court in Mapp overruled Wolf, holding that the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule completely applied to the States. Wolf is no longer good law. Mapp is why the Fourth Amendment applies to the States and why the exclusionary rule so applies. SMP0328. (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the plain language of Supreme Court opinions following Wolf indicate an understanding that Wolf incorporated the Fourth Amendment to the states (sans exclusionary rule). In his majority opinion in Mapp, Justice Clark wrote:
"At the time that the Court held in Wolf that the Amendment was applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause, the cases of this Court, as we have seen, had steadfastly held that as to federal officers the Fourth Amendment included the exclusion of the evidence seized in violation of its provisions"
(367 U.S. at 655). In his dissenting opinion in Mapp, Justice Harlan wrote:"Wolf held that the 'privacy' assured against federal action by the Fourth Amendment is also protected against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment"
(Id. at 678). Additionally, in Elkins v. United States, Justice Stewart's majority opinion stated that in Wolf,"it was unequivocally determined by a unanimous Court that the Federal Constitution, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by state officers"
(364 U.S. at 213). Therefore, I think it is appropriate for this article to say that Wolf incorporated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures but that the exclusionary rule was not incorporated until Mapp. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)- The part of Wolf referring to the Fourth Amendment's "core" applying to the States was dicta, because it wasn't necessary to the decision. Once the Wolf majority rejected the relief sought (exclusion of evidence), it was moot whether the Fourth Amendment applied to the States; the evidence was admissible regardless. Dicta is not binding precedent, so nobody was required to treat the Fourth Amendment as applying to the States. Mapp officially applied the Fourth Amendment, along with the exclusionary rule, to the States. We could add a reference to the dicta in Wolf, but Mapp is when the Fourth Amendment was officially incorporated. See this 1961 law review article. SMP0328. (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- @SMP0328.: Strictly speaking, you are correct that the portion of Wolf that discussed the "core" of the Fourth Amendment was not necessary to the Court's ultimate holding. However, the Court often discusses and explains the contours of the Constitution, even when such explanation is not necessary to the holding of a case. Although the distinction between holdings and dicta is a matter of considerable scholarly debate (see this article, this article, and this article), most scholars agree that Justice Frankfurter's pronouncement about the enforceability of the "core" of the Fourth Amendment against the states was binding precedent (see the law review articles cited in my prior comments). Subsequent SCOTUS decisions agree with this conclusion as well; in his dissent in Mapp, Justice Harlan said that Wolf "held" that privacy secured by the Fourth Amendment is "protected against state action." Likewise, in Elkins, Justice Stewart said that this Wolf "unequivocally determined" that the "core" of the Fourth Amendment was incorporated. That said, I think it might be worth including a footnote in this article to explain that some scholars think the incorporation discussion in Wolf was dicta, but per WP:WEIGHT, we should also explain that most scholars think Wolf incorporated the "core" of the Fourth Amendment, but not the exclusionary rule. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- We could place in the article that Wolf or Mapp incorporated the Fourth Amendment followed by the footnote you described. We shouldn't say that one or other is selected by most scholars. We obviously haven't reviewed all applicable scholarly writings. That would leave it to the readers to decide. Then refer to Mapp as applying the exclusionary rule to the States. SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- @SMP0328.: Strictly speaking, you are correct that the portion of Wolf that discussed the "core" of the Fourth Amendment was not necessary to the Court's ultimate holding. However, the Court often discusses and explains the contours of the Constitution, even when such explanation is not necessary to the holding of a case. Although the distinction between holdings and dicta is a matter of considerable scholarly debate (see this article, this article, and this article), most scholars agree that Justice Frankfurter's pronouncement about the enforceability of the "core" of the Fourth Amendment against the states was binding precedent (see the law review articles cited in my prior comments). Subsequent SCOTUS decisions agree with this conclusion as well; in his dissent in Mapp, Justice Harlan said that Wolf "held" that privacy secured by the Fourth Amendment is "protected against state action." Likewise, in Elkins, Justice Stewart said that this Wolf "unequivocally determined" that the "core" of the Fourth Amendment was incorporated. That said, I think it might be worth including a footnote in this article to explain that some scholars think the incorporation discussion in Wolf was dicta, but per WP:WEIGHT, we should also explain that most scholars think Wolf incorporated the "core" of the Fourth Amendment, but not the exclusionary rule. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- The part of Wolf referring to the Fourth Amendment's "core" applying to the States was dicta, because it wasn't necessary to the decision. Once the Wolf majority rejected the relief sought (exclusion of evidence), it was moot whether the Fourth Amendment applied to the States; the evidence was admissible regardless. Dicta is not binding precedent, so nobody was required to treat the Fourth Amendment as applying to the States. Mapp officially applied the Fourth Amendment, along with the exclusionary rule, to the States. We could add a reference to the dicta in Wolf, but Mapp is when the Fourth Amendment was officially incorporated. See this 1961 law review article. SMP0328. (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the plain language of Supreme Court opinions following Wolf indicate an understanding that Wolf incorporated the Fourth Amendment to the states (sans exclusionary rule). In his majority opinion in Mapp, Justice Clark wrote:
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617132308/http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/freiwald-first-principles.pdf to http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/freiwald-first-principles.pdf
- Added archive https://archive.is/20140604145757/http://restorethe4th.com/faq/ to http://restorethe4th.com/faq/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Community caretaking exception
I see no mention of the supposed "community caretaking" exception to the fourth amendment. See here. Should we have a subsection for this in the warrant exceptions section, or at the least make a mention of it? Terrorist96 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- This exception seems to be a subset of exigent circumstances. Any reference.to community caretaking should be part of the material discussing exigent circumstances. SMP0328. (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Added Fourth Amendment Lesson Plan to reference section
Hello all, beautiful page! I added the following to the reference section:
Fourth Amendment Lesson Plan (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. February 10, 2010. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
It is quite a document outlining all the case law that goes into how the government decides what is legal and not legal in law enforcement actions relating to the Fourth Amendment. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Metadata ruling
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/02/13-50572.pdf:
The panel affirmed the convictions of four members of the Somali diaspora for sending, or conspiring to send, $10,900 to Somalia to support a foreign terrorist organization, in an appeal that raised complex questions regarding the U.S. government’s authority to collect bulk data about its citizens’ activities under the auspices of a foreign intelligence investigation, as well as the rights of criminal defendants when the prosecution uses information derived from foreign intelligence surveillance.
The panel held that the government may have violated the Fourth Amendment when it collected the telephony metadata of millions of Americans, including at least one of the defendants, pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but that suppression is not warranted on the facts of this case.
Jeffrey Walton (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- This case does not appear to be a ruling on the 4A. Do you want this case added to the article? If yes, where? SMP0328. (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Basic and Essentials of the 4th Amendment for Easy Understanding
Missing Full text:
4th Amendment - "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 article fails to mention, unreasonable search is invasion of privacy, hence unconstitutional.
Unreasonable seizure is theft by government and the reason it's unlawful, also known as unconstitutional.
It's written in a way to omit and obscure (using excessive text) some basics of what the 4th Amendment is supposed to do.
Government is not allowed to invade your privacy. (unreasonable search) Government is not allowed to steal your property. (unreasonable seizure) Government is not allowed to arrest (seize) you without a good reason (probable cause, or more commentary, without an "action violation")
Police can seize (arrest) a person when an action violation (probable cause) exists and warrants (predefined) an arrest. (Slightly outside the scope of the 4th Amendment)
Government can enter your home and search when they have an actionable violation and a warrant. Government can seize your property, when a warrant is presented with specifics, such as name of the place, person and/or property to be seized Government can also seize property within reason, for example, as evidence (contraband or items with DNA, fingerprint). Property must be returned, especially if no crime can be proven (common sense). Government can arrest (seize) you, in cases of actionable violation (probable cause, also known as a crime, also known as a good reason).
You should probably separate history into the History Section and Case Files into Case File section, to remove as much clutter from the purpose of the 4th Amendment. Abuse section would tell the reader why it was made into law centuries ago. Purpose section can be added below that (above text).
Starting point for Abuse (section) of government powers by tyrants. They would be able to rummage through someone else's property, and they would take whatever they wanted (unreasonable search and seizure). Seizing (arrest) of persons for speaking out against the tyrant, for example. The laws can be traced back to England, and why it's forbidden in the United States.
76.135.14.59 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song