Running head: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1
Constitutional Amendments and the Bill of Rights
Criminal Procedure CJA/364
Carla Taylor
September 13th, 2022
, Running head: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS 2
Constitutional Amendments and the Bill of Rights
Through the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, U.S. citizens enjoy the
comfort of liberties that they may not otherwise be able to avail themselves of in other countries.
While far from perfect, we can rest assured that the amendments will endure in spirit for
centuries. Their interpretation, however, is a matter for the Supreme Court. Since our
technology is rapidly changing, and our nation is threatened with new terroristic threats that our
forbearers could not anticipate, the courts must decide how these protections can be interpreted
in order to maintain their intentions, while ensuring a modicum of protection from criminals.
For example, the right to search must be extended to the digital arena. The FBI currently
circumvents Fourth Amendment concerns by using a packet sniffer, which reports back to its
monitoring system, called Carnivore (EFF, 2003).
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment is intended to prevent unreasonable search and seizure (Hall,
2011). Currently, criminal procedure is being affected by the interpretation of the Fourth
Amendment in terms of what is considered reasonable. What is especially relevant to searches
are the evolution of both technology and the larger role that DNA evidence plays within our
lives, as well as our expectation of privacy. For example, some computers were stolen from a
Philadelphia school district, and law enforcement activated the cameras in order to identify the
perpetrators (Bellin, 2011). We can see here a few issues, one being that the perpetrators are
probably minors, and secondly that an unwitting person may have purchased the computer and
will have had their privacy violated.
Vile and Hudson (2013) note that there are a few Fourth Amendment issues with DNA
evidence. Generally, the U.S. court systems have upheld the constitutionality of DNA evidence
Constitutional Amendments and the Bill of Rights
Criminal Procedure CJA/364
Carla Taylor
September 13th, 2022
, Running head: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS 2
Constitutional Amendments and the Bill of Rights
Through the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, U.S. citizens enjoy the
comfort of liberties that they may not otherwise be able to avail themselves of in other countries.
While far from perfect, we can rest assured that the amendments will endure in spirit for
centuries. Their interpretation, however, is a matter for the Supreme Court. Since our
technology is rapidly changing, and our nation is threatened with new terroristic threats that our
forbearers could not anticipate, the courts must decide how these protections can be interpreted
in order to maintain their intentions, while ensuring a modicum of protection from criminals.
For example, the right to search must be extended to the digital arena. The FBI currently
circumvents Fourth Amendment concerns by using a packet sniffer, which reports back to its
monitoring system, called Carnivore (EFF, 2003).
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment is intended to prevent unreasonable search and seizure (Hall,
2011). Currently, criminal procedure is being affected by the interpretation of the Fourth
Amendment in terms of what is considered reasonable. What is especially relevant to searches
are the evolution of both technology and the larger role that DNA evidence plays within our
lives, as well as our expectation of privacy. For example, some computers were stolen from a
Philadelphia school district, and law enforcement activated the cameras in order to identify the
perpetrators (Bellin, 2011). We can see here a few issues, one being that the perpetrators are
probably minors, and secondly that an unwitting person may have purchased the computer and
will have had their privacy violated.
Vile and Hudson (2013) note that there are a few Fourth Amendment issues with DNA
evidence. Generally, the U.S. court systems have upheld the constitutionality of DNA evidence
