Essays --

The Evolution of Warrantless Searches With Alcohol, Blood, And DNA With the creation of the First Congress, framers manifested the Fourth Amendment to provide sufficient privacy standards for the citizens of the United States of America. Framers upheld the 4th Amendment to sustain a functioning government-governed relationship, where officials respect individuals’ privacy and rights. During the First Congress, framers explicitly granted, â€Å"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† to the citizens. Moreover, courts have delineated two major clauses from the primary text of the Amendment. The first clause essentially protects the privacy of an individual to be safe in person. The immediate second clause introduces a circumstance which warrants are non-essential. Furthermore, both the expectation of privacy and certain circumstances to preserve government interests have collectively emerged from the two clauses. Consequently throughout court cases in the U.S, the protections of the Fourth Amendment have resulted in disagreement explicitly concerning searches violating a person’s privacy and reasonable searches for where no warrants are required. Recently, blood and DNA extractions embody an indispensable role in modern law enforcement. The advent of blood, DNA, and other technologies are now the most significant scientific advancements in the modern era. Since the first use of forensic DNA identification in 1986, DNA’s role in ... ...forcement has utilized blood and DNA tests to exonerate suspects convicted of crimes and guide officials to convict other suspects. Furthermore, in effect of the Supreme Court cases, blood and DNA tests now promote a superior justice system more effectively and efficiently. The recent cases, which have provided many exigent circumstances where warrants are not essential for a search, have developed excelling tactics and procedures to ensure the integrity of modern law enforcement. After these cases, lower courts and law enforcement teams are now able to act quicker and responsively to enforce governmental interests. In conclusion, the trials Samson v. California, Missouri v. McNeely, and Maryland v. King have established clear boundaries for 4th Amendment and they have facilitated the advancement of efficient and applicative technology in modern law enforcement.