Dickerson, Froeschner, Hughes, Ramos1 The Fourth Amendment is the most important amendment found in the Bill of Rights

because of the protection it offers in different aspects of privacy. First, citizens have the right to be secure in their persons. In the 2001 court case of Kyllo v. United States, the police discovered Kyllos personal marijuana stock through the use of Thermal Imaging technology. The Supreme Court ruled five to four in favor of Kyllo, stating that the use of a thermal camera is still considered a formal inspection because it is not technology and equipment readily available to the general public. The Court found that this search was unlawful without a warrant and thusly in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Secondly, citizens have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. In the 2000 trial of Bond v. United States, Bond was traveling when security squeezed his bag and then asked if they could examine the contents of his luggage. They happened upon a brick of methamphetamines. The court ruled seven to two in favor of Bond, concluding that the security attendant performed an illegal search of Bonds travel bag because security failed to ask Bond to search his bag. Lastly, the exclusionary rule sets guardrails for the government. In the 1913 case of Weeks v. United States, police entered the home of Fremont Weeks and convicted him of sending lottery tickets through the mail. The police did not have a search warrant to legally search Weekss home, so the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Weeks. The evidence was found to be obtained unconstitutionally, and this principle later became known as the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule prohibits the use of illegally obtained material to be submitted as evidence in a federal court. Although not explicitly supported in the Fourth Amendment, the ruling in Weeks v. United States would lead to the Courts deriving of this principle. The most important enumerated right given in the Fourth Amendment is the protection

Dickerson, Froeschner, Hughes, Ramos2 against unreasonable searches and seizures. One such provision against these is the knock and announce principle, established in the 1994 trial Wilson v. Arkansas. Sharlene Wilson sold narcotics to agents of the Arkansas State Police that were working undercover. The police later came with a search warrant and found the door open, entering the residence without announcing themselves. Although they had a warrant, the police violated Wilsons rights by entering without permission or announcement. Second, although we have a right to privacy, this right only lasts until we enter a public setting. In the 1987 court case of California v. Greenwood, the court ruled that placing trash on the curb is forfeiting the right to privacy because it is being placed in a public setting. The police cannot be expected to ignore illegal activity that is made available to the members of the public. Finally, the Fourth Amendment keeps the boundaries between the government and people under its jurisdiction. In the 1960 court case of Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials during an illegal search for a fugitive. At that time, it was illegal for any citizen of Ohio to be in possession of pornography. However, despite being in possession of illegal materials, no warrant was ever issued to search Mapps residence. The court ruled in favor of Mapp in a vote of six to three, ruling that the incriminating material was obtained illegally. The United States of America would look considerably different if the Fourth Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights. There would be no constraints on the governments power to invade privacy. Even today, with the Fourth Amendment, the government is pushing the boundaries of how searches are conducted, ranging from devices as complex as mobile scanners in New York subway stations to as old-fashioned as unwarranted wiretaps. Next, the government would be allowed to conduct searches without a warrant. In Canada, in the case R. v. Plant, it was ruled that the Canadian government has the right to search

Dickerson, Froeschner, Hughes, Ramos3 a personal computer without a warrant. They ruled that because the computer is used to access public information, therefore the government has the right to search the computer. If America did not have the Fourth Amendment, the government would be allowed to control and mishandle the rights people deserve in this same way. Finally, without the Fourth Amendment, the American tenets of life, liberty, and property would be undermined. In 2003, in the case of Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, the police barged in on the two men having consensual homosexual sex. Without a warrant, the police were replying to a reported weapons disturbance. Despite homosexual sex to be an illegal action in Texas, the two men were in the privacy of their home, therefore they were within the bounds of the law. Without the fourth amendment, the life Americans live today would be completely different.