|
>The 4th Amendment - and specifically its warrant requirement - is often misunderstood to be about protecting individuals from government searches. Warrants will generally be granted, and the search of any particular individual is going to happen if the government wants it to. Yes, but at the time the Constitution was written warrants were a requirements for a search. If a British officer showed up on your property and demanded to search it without a warrant you could literally shoot him. This led to the issuance of "general warrants," allowing British officers to search entire houses and estates. The Fourth Amendment was a direct reaction to that, which is enshrined in the language "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." But you conveniently left out the most important part: the rationale at the beginning of the Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" The whole purpose of the Amendment was to protect individuals from government searches. The text says so right on its face: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." The exclusionary rule or "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, with which you seem to be confusing the Amendment itself, is a twentieth century invention of the Warren court. |
By the time of the Constitution, a British officer demanding to search your premises had more problems than whether or not they had a warrant.
Its true that by the time of the Constitution, most states required particular warrants -- these requirements were adopted in the Constitutions many states adopted when the declared independence. General "writs of assistance", which were transferrable blank checks issued to particular officers that lasted for the entire length of a monarch's reign (and for 6 months thereafter!) were permitted prior to that (perceived abuse of these by the British customs authorities was, in fact, one of the major source of tension leading to the revolution.)
But yes, the purpose of the Amendment was to protect individuals.
> The exclusionary rule or "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, with which you seem to be confusing the Amendment itself, is a twentieth century invention of the Warren court.
Its worth noting that before the exclusionary rule, there was no remedy for most violations of the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule doesn't substitute for the protection of the Amendment, it gives them some (though limited) teeth.