4th Amendment Case Brief

Words: 709
Pages: 3

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that it is a fundamental right that each person be secure, meaning the government cannot infringe upon one’s privacy including their right to private property. There are exceptions in place such as residential consent and exigent circumstances for the sake of “community caretaking” and to prevent harm inflicted on officers or anyone else. This was not the case when the Cranston police deceived both Edward and Beverly Johnson, illegally entering their home and confiscating Mr. Johnson’s arms. Mr. Johnson, having no criminal or self-harm history, retrieved his unloaded handgun during a fight with his wife of twenty-seven years with the sarcastic request, “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?” The situation escalated with Mrs. Johnson’s worries that her husband may be suicidal, and the officers sent Mr. Johnson for a …show more content…
Johnson was in the hospital, the Cranston police deceived his wife by claiming they had Mr. Johnson’s consent and took the guns anyway. Police provided community caretaking services only to vehicles so as to prevent unlawful searches and seizures such as this one in Johnson v. Waters. The “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not extend to the home. Three previous cases set precedents that support the Court’s decision: Cady v. Dombrowski in 1973, Payton v. New York in 1980, and Georgia v. Randolph in 2006. In Cady v. Dombrowski, community caretaking was valid because it regarded a vehicle in police custody. The search in this case was reasonable, partly because vehicles are eligible for less privacy protection than homes are. Originally, the Fourth Amendment came about in response to the British storming colonial homes, and therefore the home holds more