The Incredible Shrinking Fourth Amendment —The Ongoing Erosion of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

G. Minchin
{"title":"The Incredible Shrinking Fourth Amendment —The Ongoing Erosion of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America","authors":"G. Minchin","doi":"10.4236/blr.2021.123043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the Prohibition era, the US Supreme Court, “the court” radically deviated from the plain meaning of the Fourth Amendment and precedential authority. The object of this essay is to show that the “trespass” doctrine adopted in this period, was in fact a Prohibition law enforcement doctrine, which took only those parts of the common law that accorded with the court’s recasting of the balance set in the Fourth Amendment. This unprincipled approach construed the Amendment to allow wiretaps, when there was increasing public concern over this expansion of police power. This eventually led to the replacement of the “trespass” doctrine with the privacy doctrine, in Katz v. United States (1967). However, the focus on personal privacy counter-poses a weak value, to the strong value of effective law enforcement, as it pits a personal interest against a public interest. What is lost is the public interest in preventing the expansion of state power, under the veil of law enforcement. It is the central thesis of this work that both the “trespass” doctrine and the privacy doctrine have weakened Fourth Amendment protections and in part, have resulted in a law enforcement culture which is to an extent now out of control. The methodology employed to substantiate this thesis is a close analysis of the central cases, placed within a chronological context.","PeriodicalId":300394,"journal":{"name":"Beijing Law Review","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Beijing Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2021.123043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the Prohibition era, the US Supreme Court, “the court” radically deviated from the plain meaning of the Fourth Amendment and precedential authority. The object of this essay is to show that the “trespass” doctrine adopted in this period, was in fact a Prohibition law enforcement doctrine, which took only those parts of the common law that accorded with the court’s recasting of the balance set in the Fourth Amendment. This unprincipled approach construed the Amendment to allow wiretaps, when there was increasing public concern over this expansion of police power. This eventually led to the replacement of the “trespass” doctrine with the privacy doctrine, in Katz v. United States (1967). However, the focus on personal privacy counter-poses a weak value, to the strong value of effective law enforcement, as it pits a personal interest against a public interest. What is lost is the public interest in preventing the expansion of state power, under the veil of law enforcement. It is the central thesis of this work that both the “trespass” doctrine and the privacy doctrine have weakened Fourth Amendment protections and in part, have resulted in a law enforcement culture which is to an extent now out of control. The methodology employed to substantiate this thesis is a close analysis of the central cases, placed within a chronological context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
令人难以置信的缩水第四修正案——美利坚合众国宪法第四修正案的持续侵蚀
在禁酒令时代,美国最高法院,“法院”从根本上偏离了第四修正案和先例权威的简单含义。本文的目的在于表明,这一时期所采用的“非法侵入”原则实际上是一种禁止性执法原则,它只采用了普通法中符合法院对第四修正案所设定的平衡的重新诠释的那些部分。这种无原则的做法,在公众对警察权力扩大的担忧日益加剧的情况下,被解释为允许窃听。这最终导致在卡茨诉美国案(1967)中,“非法侵入”原则被隐私原则所取代。然而,对个人隐私的关注与有效执法的强大价值背道而驰,因为它使个人利益与公共利益相冲突。失去的是在执法的面纱下防止国家权力扩张的公众利益。这项工作的中心论点是,“非法侵入”原则和隐私原则都削弱了第四修正案的保护,并在一定程度上导致了一种执法文化,这种文化现在已经失控。用来证实这篇论文的方法是对中心案例的密切分析,放在一个时间顺序的背景下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Use of Law in Wildlife Management The Incredible Shrinking Fourth Amendment —The Ongoing Erosion of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America The Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research: Ethics Guardians or Keystone Cops? Research on the Development Direction of International Commercial Arbitration Network Institutionalizing Social Norms and Legal Culture: Social Dynamics under Legal Awareness Policy in Contemporary China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1