Impact of the Fourth Amendment on Law Enforcement, Policy, and Regulations

 
Impact of the Fourth Amendment on Law Enforcement, Policy, and Regulations
Author

Introduction
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the every individual is free from unreasonable government seizures and searches and presents a quandary for the society. It embodies among other things, every person’s right to retreat into their own home and they be free from government’s unreasonable intrusion. The Fourth Amendment makes a reflection about use of excess police force. Perhaps even more than the any other provisions of the Bill of Rights, it makes it plain that the Constitution does not tolerate the tactics of a police state (Maclin, 1993). The protections that the Fourth Amendment enforces are unquestionably fundamental. For some, the Fourth Amendment handcuff the police in their never ending battles of bringing criminals to justice. Additionally, many people believe that because of the amendment, dangerous criminals are released because the police failed to follow its technical provisions.
Impacts
Therefore, the Fourth Amendment poses a significant dilemma. Questions that remain unanswered include how much power should the police have and how important is personal security and privacy. The doctrine of the Fourth Amendment requires courts to not only make empirical police judgments and how they interact with the citizens but also discern the moral, political, and historical demands of the constitutions, as well as to coming up with causal conclusions about the consequences of possible constitution rules (Harmon, 2011). The Supreme Court sets it straight that the courts which interpret the Fourth Amendment must understand the intrusion nature against a person, the extent of interest the government has on the intrusion and law enforcement consequences (Harmon, 2011). These interests must then be balanced against each other. To assess these considerations courts need to reach conclusions based on facts about matters beyond the case. 
Not every analysis of the Fourth Amendment depends on consequences. It is up to the courts to determine the values of the Fourth Amendment is being protected, when the protected values are strongest, or when individual’s interests can be overweighed (Harmon, 2011).. All this is done in light of the moral principles and historic traditions which underlie the Fourth Amendment. The significance of moral considerations can be seen for instance in the conclusion by the Supreme Court that “it is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape” (Maclin, 1993). The Court has been motivated by historical concerns when it did not need warrants of arrest for felons lawfully arrested in public areas. 
In the jurisprudence of the Fourth Amendment however, even the decision making that is most principled is in the long run, made with regard to the consequences. Where the Court takes history into consideration, it must do analysis beyond it, since history is often disputable, equivocal and not sufficiently persuasive for many justices by itself. The cases of the Fourth Amendment inevitable involve a mix-up judgment about law enforcement, individuals and the decision’s future consequences.. 
The central meaning of the Fourth Amendment according to the Court lies on ‘reasonableness.’ What the court wants is for us to believe that the provision merely provisions that officers in law enforcement pursue reasonable goals and act rationally when they invade individuals and their possessions. The measure of being reasonable is generally determined by creating a balance of the interests at stake: the interest of the individual in personal security and privacy and the government’s interest in law enforcement. As a matter of fact, the Fourth Amendment seems to support a reasonableness test to determine the intrusions by the police, since it speaks of ‘unreasonable seizures and searches.’ The big question remains how the court decides what reasonable under the Fourth Amendment is. While the Court could define reasonableness as warrant requirement before invasion of an individual’s privacy or personal security unless it is impractical or impossible, it does not do so. Under the analytical model of the Court, law enforcement officers rarely must comply with the procedural safeguards of the amendment’s Warrant Clause. The Warrant Clause has safeguards which include judicial oversight of intrusions by police, probable cause and warrant which particularly describe the persons to be seized or the places to be searched. 
The questions regarding the Fourth Amendment are instead resolved using a test which approximates the rational basis standard. This test decides the challenges of due process in economic and social legislation and equal protection. Under the analysis of the Court, the complaints regarding the Fourth Amendment are only upheld when the police acted irrationally. If the court can identify any plausible reason or goal which promotes the interests of the law