Write 150 words responding to the question below in bold. No title page. Need to cite and reference. Do you feel as though there are a lot of unwarranted searches that still take place in todays world? Whether it be a vehicle or a property? Every so often we hear of an illegal search when officers or agencies use a reason for probable cause yet there is nothing found that provided them that probable cause? Do you think those who are searched have a right to receive civil payment for these errors? Or do you think they should just be happy that the criminal justice system is doing their jobs? Orginial post behind the question above Amendment 4 usually advocates for the right of people to be secure through ensuring safeties in their persons, houses, papers and all that is different from doubtful searches and seizures. This calls for making this right not attributed to violation or warrant issue. The need for Oath affirmation comes in which in turn tries to explain on the places to be searched, things or the person. The most interesting part of this is that, despite having various constitutional rights that are acknowledged by various citizens (Group, 2017). Each and every state has its governing constitutions. The Constitution can be changed through Amendments which is among the lists of rights of individuals. Putting this right down makes the government attempt to violate those rights. However, not all of them involve rights, like for the case of a bill of rights. There is need to protect all citizens whether they are criminal or they are innocent because all of them are citizens (Group, 2017). References Group, F. M. (2017).  Unreasonable Search and Seizure.  Retrieved from fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=18566&xtid=8103. The second Orginial post for reason for the question above Just to add a little to your post, which I enjoyed reading. This film depicts the factual information concerning the Fourth Amendment rights of search and seizure.  This amendment protects society from criminal behavior, while upholding the right to privacy and the right from unreasonable searches.  The exclusionary rule was formulated by the Supreme Court in the early years of the 1900's, approximately 1914.  In the cause of Weeks vs. the United States, Weeks had been convicted on the basis of evidence seized from his home in the course of two warrantless searches.  The Courts unanimously held that the evidence should have been excluded, because the police in lay terms does not get a chance to go in and take an illegal bite of the apple two times.  What is consider unreasonable search and seizure and what is allowed as a lawful warrantless search which is upheld by the law.  For example a person is taken into custody without a warrant, if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or a misdemeanor in their presence, the legality of warrantless searches of cars, planes, and other vehicles are legal as lon.

1. Write 150 words responding to the question below in bold. No
title page. Need to cite and reference.
Do you feel as though there are a lot of unwarranted searches
that still take place in todays world? Whether it be a vehicle or
a property? Every so often we hear of an illegal search when
officers or agencies use a reason for probable cause yet there is
nothing found that provided them that probable cause? Do you
think those who are searched have a right to receive civil
payment for these errors? Or do you think they should just be
happy that the criminal justice system is doing their jobs?
Orginial post behind the question above
Amendment 4 usually advocates for the right of people to be
secure through ensuring safeties in their persons, houses, papers
and all that is different from doubtful searches and seizures.
This calls for making this right not attributed to violation or
warrant issue. The need for Oath affirmation comes in which in
turn tries to explain on the places to be searched, things or the
person. The most interesting part of this is that, despite having
various constitutional rights that are acknowledged by various
citizens (Group, 2017). Each and every state has its governing
constitutions. The Constitution can be changed through
Amendments which is among the lists of rights of individuals.
Putting this right down makes the government attempt to violate
those rights. However, not all of them involve rights, like for
the case of a bill of rights. There is need to protect all citizens
whether they are criminal or they are innocent because all of
them are citizens (Group, 2017).
References
Group, F. M. (2017).
Unreasonable Search and Seizure.
Retrieved from

2. fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=18566&xtid=8103.
The second Orginial post for reason for the question above
Just to add a little to your post, which I enjoyed reading. This
film depicts the factual information concerning the Fourth
Amendment rights of search and seizure. This amendment
protects society from criminal behavior, while upholding the
right to privacy and the right from unreasonable searches. The
exclusionary rule was formulated by the Supreme Court in the
early years of the 1900's, approximately 1914. In the cause of
Weeks vs. the United States, Weeks had been convicted on the
basis of evidence seized from his home in the course of two
warrantless searches. The Courts unanimously held that the
evidence should have been excluded, because the police in lay
terms does not get a chance to go in and take an illegal bite of
the apple two times. What is consider unreasonable search and
seizure and what is allowed as a lawful warrantless search
which is upheld by the law. For example a person is taken into
custody without a warrant, if they have probable cause to
believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or
a misdemeanor in their presence, the legality of warrantless
searches of cars, planes, and other vehicles are legal as long as
probable suspicion exists. This film also eludes to the fact that
drug trafficking has been easily done in vehicles, and the
suspicion of these persons once stopped can allow warrantless
searches and seizures. I enjoyed the film, there is so much
information to leaned both from past and present laws and
circumstances.