NCJ Number
76902
Date Published
1979
Length
41 pages
Annotation
In this booklet prepared by the Church of Scientology, alleged erosion of the fourth amendment and its effects on individual liberty are discussed; relevant case law is highlighted.
Abstract
The fourth amendment limits the Government's power to violate the privacy of citizens or to search or seize their property. Decisions of the courts over the years have put teeth into the fourth amendment in the form of the exclusionary rule. The rule specifies that material and evidence that has been seized in violation of the fourth amendment must be returned to its owners and may not be used against them. This rule is intended to deter police from conducting unconstitutional searchers and seizures. It is contended that recent judicial decisions, particularly those made by the Supreme Court, have eroded fourth amendment protections. The booklet asserts that despite a solid constitutional foundation, the fourth amendment is violated repeatedly by police who ignore the Constitution and illegally search persons and their homes and businesses. The only effective check on arbitrary police searches are punishments provided by the courts. Unfortunately, judicial interpretation has been inconsistent in this area. The first major Supreme Court case involving a fourth amendment issue, Boyd v. United States (1886), established the principle that the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence is itself unconstitutional. In recent decades, the issue of exclusion of evidence has become increasingly confused and controversial. It is suggested that erosion of the fourth amendment protections began in 1928 with the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. United States that a wiretap was not covered by the fourth amendment. In other cases, the Court has held that the police may conduct searches without a warrant under certain circumstances. In a 1977 incident, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched an entire building of the Church of Scientology, an action which went far beyond the limits of the warrant. The booklet argues that the individual must protect himself from such invasion, as the courts no longer do so. Drawings are provided.