Research Paper on:
Vehicle Searching and the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
to enter a home and that they cannot stop and frisk people on a whim. There must be some evidence for people to be stopped and searched, but they know  little about the nuances of fourth amendment rights. Some do not realize that reasonable searches and seizures are allowed. Amar (2001) reiterates the most important part of the fourth amendment  which is: "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" (p.79). The key here  is the definition of unreasonable. What constitutes an unreasonable, or reasonable, search? Amar (2001) points to the fact that what the amendment does not say is also important. He notes  that it does not say that all searches or seizures must have warrants, nor does it mandate that every intrusion be backed by probable cause or even specific suspicions (2001).  It also does not command that all unconstitutional intrusions immediately fall under the exclusionary rule (2001). In fact, while the fourth amendment provides protection for innocent citizens, it is only  to some extent, when circumstances are such that a judge will rule that the police made a terrible mistake. Of course, there are times when a judge knowingly has to  exclude evidence in a trial that suggests the defendant is guilty, because officers did not protect the suspects fourth amendment rights. In looking at three cases where automobiles were  searched without warrants, limitations of police as well as their actual authority, is demonstrated. In the 1970 case Chambers v. Maroney, the main question concerns the admissibility of evidence seized