Being in the military, the 4th amendment has protected the privacy of all military members and their
families, as well as the safety and good order of the base. In regards to safety and good order, when
entering a military installation, it is advised and posted in every entrance that one is given implied
consent for the inspection of their vehicle. During an inspection which is not a search, will allow
military police to inspect one’s vehicle for contraband, stolen government property, and other items that
will bring disorder and an unsafe environment in to the installation. However, if an illegal item is
found, the person being inspected has the right under the 4th Amendment to have the inspection
continue on with out a search warrant. If military police fail to provide a search warrant and continue to
search the rest of the vehicle for more evidence of the suspected crime, all items seized will be
inadmissible in court. Another protection of the law is in military housing. Families are protected by
the 4th Amendment from search and seizure of their homes even if it within federal property.
Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers
San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
RE: The 4th Amendment
10/28/2016 4:55:29 AM
10/28/2016 4:57 AM
Anthony, Wendi, Tiffany and Roy: thanks for your responses the first
discussion question of Week 1 Discussion Forum.
All of you chose to discuss the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the Fourth
Amendment continues to be the subject of many recent Supreme Court
decisions (including the Court's recent decisions invalidating searches for
digital data on cell phones in connection with a lawful arrest).
use of the Fourth Amendment in the context of the business environment
is seemingly quite different and raises other issues.
Generally, the language of the Fourth Amendment reveals a specific
concern for the privacy of “PERSONS” in their “HOUSES.” There is no
discussion of the private workplace. Since when did a place of business
become “a man‛s castle?”
More fundamentally, is a business a “PERSON” within the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment? How do we know the answer to this question by looking
at the specific language of the Fourth Amendment?
Thanks. I look forward to your responses … and further discussions with
Prof Will Muniak