Fourth and Fifth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads: 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 things to be seized (The Free Dictionary 2013) In 1973, the Supreme Court case Cady v.

Dombrowski created the “community caretaking exception,” which allows an unconstitutional warrantless search of an automobile where the search is conducted by law enforcement in an attempt to protect the general public from harm, as opposed to a search conducted during the course of a criminal investigation. (Circuit Splits 2013) This is an exception can be used in crisis situations for the greater good. The case goes as the following: In the town of Cady in Wisconsin, police officers searched Dombrowski’s car for a handgun.During the time of the search Dombrowski was in a coma in a local hospital after a motor vehicle accident. The police officers knew that he was a Chicago police officer and was required to carry his revolver with them at all times.

(Call 2012) During the initial search Dombrowski’s revolver was not found in a search of the rental car he was driving at the time of the accident. The police returned to the rental car to look again for the service revolver, so it would not end up in the wrong hands. Call 2012)  Through this secondary search evidence of a possible crime was revealed to police officers. Information resulted in the police discovering the body of a murder victim and evidence linking Dombrowski to the killing.

(Call 2012) Dombrowski was charged with murder by the police resulting from the search. This case was the foundation of these types of searches being justified by police officers during special circumstances. The Fifth Amendment of the U. S.

Constitution reads: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Hunter p. 267-268) The last clause of the Fifth Amendment takes on the Taking Clause by which private property cannot be taken over by the government for public use without compensation. But again like many other clauses there is an exception to the rule. This clause is divided in two parts one being eminent domain and the other being police power. Eminent Doman is the power to take private property for public use following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

Hunter p 268) Police power is the other form and often referred to as a taking and occurs when the government deprives a person of property or directly interferes with or substantially disturbs a person's use his or her property. (Hunter p. 268) Though it is not set statue or law when a government takes over a property under a taking they are not require to pay compensation to the owner unless all economic benefit use of the land is lost. So now let’s look at what would be defined as an Emergency Taking.

This type of taking would occur where property is significantly destroy, but in an emergency situation. Salzberg 2006) If a natural disaster such as earthquake were to occur and damage a building to where it would be too dangerous to reenter; the building would be demolished for the best interest of public safety but still be occupied by the owner’s personal property. In situations like this, the property owner is awarded no compensation from the government because they were acting in the best interest of public if the building was not demolished. The Fourth and Fifth Amendment are designed to protect the public from the federal government but as we have seen there are always exceptions to the rule.Are these exemptions justified? This will be debated and argued from years to come.

In my opinion, as stated both of these situations are in the “best interest,” of the public for the common good. No they are not clear cut and can be interrupted differently. Why is a secondary search of a vehicle or property that has been searched before such a big deal unless someone has something to hide? Demolition of an unsafe property to ensure the safety of others seems reasonable. In the end, personal property can be replaced lives cannot. References Call, J.

(2012).The Community Caretaker Function Exception to the Warrant Requirement Retrieved from: http://www. vachiefs. org/vapleac/vplb/7-1/aug12_caregiver.

htm Circuit Splits. (2012). New Exception Allowing Warrantless Home Entries Headed to the High Court? Retrieved from: http://www. circuitsplits. com/community-caretaker-exception/ Salzberg, K. (2006).

The dog that didn’t bark: Assessing damages for valid regulatory takings. Retrieved from: http://lawlibrary. unm. edu/nrj/46/1/05_salzberg_dog. pdf The Free Dictionary.

(2013) Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from: http://legal- dictionary. thefreedictionary. com/Fourth+Amendment