With also mentions Due Process in which “no

With many
cases addressing the Fourth and Fourteen Amendment, there are widespread of
interpretations of these amendments. Complex judicial analyses such as the stop
and seizure and the Fourteen Amendment compromises the rights of citizens due to
a specific interpretation of both amendments that Congress has left the courts
to use regardless of the complexity of the cases. Complex cases such as Stop,
and Frisk and Mapp v. Ohio aren’t meant to follow a set rule and instead should
be analyzed in a different perspective. Both amendments place too much power in
the congress due to the courts being forced to take on the interpretation of Congress
instead of the courts own ruling.

The
Fourteen Amendment addresses Equal Protection and the rights of citizens. It limits
the action of state and local officials. It also mentions Due Process in which “no
person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law” which also refers to fair procedures. An important part mentioned within
the amendment is how “…any state shall not deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Equal Protection prohibits
states from denying any person equal protection of laws. It is basically
stating that states must treat individuals with similar conditions as others. The
Federal government must do the same; the Fifth Amendment due process.

Listed
above was Section One of the Fourteen Amendment. Section Five states “The
congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.” This is very contradictory. Section Five gives
congress the power to determine and interpret constitutional rights. Which
means the judiciary is forced to take on Congress’ interpretation of what is
determined to be the rights of the citizenry. This leaves the rights of the
people left in the interpretations of the congress which leaves them to follow
a set rule for all cases instead of analyzing it in a different perception for unusual,
special cases that aren’t meant to be treated normal, i.e. Search and seizure. It
is also not fair to citizens because if the court refers to Congress’
interpretations and their interpretation aren’t reasonable, then how exactly
does that protect the rights of the citizens? Congressional interpretation replaces
courts own rule.

An
example would be Mapp v. Ohio. In June 1961, police had received a tip that a
bombing suspect might be in Dollree Mapp’s home in Cleveland, Ohio. Police
produced a fake warrant when Mapp refused to the search of her home. Though no
bomb was located, sexually explicit materials were discovered and as a result,
Mapp was arrested due to state law; possession of obscene materials. She
appealed her case by using the First Amendment right to possess the material
and as a result, the court held the evidence collected from the unlawful search.
This shows how the Legislature has a final ruling on the courts but as well as the
unlawfulness of Search and Seizures.

The
interpretation of search and seizures can be difficult as well. Search and
seizure is described as law enforcement’s examination of an individual’s
personal property such as their home, vehicle, etc. in order to find evidence
connected to a crime. If evidence is found, the person can be placed under
arrest. The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or thing to be seized.”

 In many cases it’s not that simple since the Fourth
Amendment protects our basic rights to privacy but the courts and legislature
created ways in which officers are allowed interfere with this amendment under very
specific conditions. For example, in 2005 New York City began random searches
of packages and backpacks in subways in order to increase safety. Law
enforcement may not be able to search the individual’s personal property where
it would have been considered and recognized as a setting of privacy but the expectation
to this rule is if a person or third party; person in charge of the property,
which would be the MTA, gave a voluntary consent then performing the search
would be perfectly legal. Also, if the officer does not have a warrant but has
probable cause; believing whether the individual committed the crime or not,
the search may be conducted.

 There are many loopholes to this amendment in
which the rights of the citizens are violated. There are many cases in which
there were unlawful, warrantless searches. The only benefit in which
individuals are guaranteed in which officers violate the Fourth Amendment right
is that if a search and seizure is found unlawful, it will not be used in the
case. Another example in which individual’s rights were unlawfully violated
were the NYPD’s stop and frisk practices which targeted individuals for their
race. It as well had concerns for illegal stops and privacy rights. This continued
for many years until August 12th, 2014, a federal court found New
York City Police Department stop and frisk practices unconstitutional due to it
violating New Yorker’s Fourth amendment rights due to unreasonable searches and
seizures and were as well racially discriminatory in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause; the Fourteen amendment.