# data[].attributes.body
This letter to My representative talks about improving our criminal justice systems

# data[].attributes.body
Why people should be more aware of their 4th Amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Where Do you Fit? The 2016 Political Party Quiz.

# data[].attributes.subject
Where Do you Fit? The 2016 Political Party Quiz.

# data[].attributes.body
According to the quiz on the PBS website by Laura Santhanam on September 8th,2016. I am viewed as a liberal. Which means I believe in that we should have the freedom to do in what we believe .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 2016 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most divisive contests in recent memory. To better understand where you land on the political spectrum, take our updated Political Party Quiz, developed by Pew Research Center in collaboration with the PBS NewsHour.

Questions gauge political values and an individual's stance on policies and range from government spending to gay marriage. Your score shows your likelihood of being Republican or Democrat and is based on a Pew March 2016 political survey.

Nationally, the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is getting closer; an average of polls show Clinton's post-convention bounce is over. Lisa Desjardins examines both candidates' polling strengths and Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post's Dan Balz join Judy Woodruff for a breakdown of the electorate and how the candidates can drive home their messages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where do you fit? The 2016 Political Party Quiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 2016 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most divisive contests in recent memory. To better understand where you fit in, take our updated Political Party Quiz, developed by the Pew Research Center and the PBS NewsHour.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article from The Washington Times written by Valerie Richardson on August 16, 2016 talks about how The Black Lives Matter movement raised over 100 Million dollars form Liberal foundations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For all its talk of being a street uprising, Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million from liberal foundations and others eager to contribute to what has become the grant-making cause du jour.

The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy recently announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition.

That funding comes in addition to more than $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from top Democratic Party donor George Soros through his Open Society Foundations, as well as grant-making from the Center for American Progress.

"The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America," said the Borealis announcement.

In doing so, however, the foundations have aligned themselves with the staunch left-wing platform of the Movement for Black Lives, which unveiled a policy agenda shortly after the fund was announced accusing Israel of being an "apartheid state" guilty of "genocide."

Released Aug. 1, the platform also calls for defunding police departments, race-based reparations, breaking, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a "universal basic income," and free college for blacks.
PHOTOS: Top .45-caliber handguns for home defense
As far as critics are concerned, the grab-bag platform combined with the staggering underwriting commitment offer more evidence that Black Lives Matter is being used as a conduit for left-wing politics as usual.

"It's about time people woke up to the fact that big money is using people as pawns to stoke racial hatred and further their global agenda," said the Federalist Papers Project 's C.E. Dyer.

Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said corporations and others may want to think twice about partnering with the Ford Foundation, the fifth-largest U.S. philanthropy with $12.4 billion in assets.

"The Ford Foundation has traditionally been leftist, at least since the 1970s, on law-enforcement matters. So it's not a huge surprise, but it's certainly disappointing," said Mr. Johnson. "I guess potential donors may want to look at the [Black Lives Matter] movement and see the damage, destruction and murders that they've left in their wake."

For Black Lives Matter, the grant-making partnership isn't risk free, lending legitimacy to the movement but also credence to those who say it has strayed from the concerns of black Americans calling for equal treatment at the hands of police.

"I think whoever's in charge of vetting a grant like that didn't do their homework," said Mr. Johnson. "Or maybe this was already in the works before they realized what exactly they were dealing with before this platform came out-before it became more apparent that it's become today's Velcro for what the leftist-fringe movement desires."

And that's a shame, he said, "because instead of having a serious movement that might have been a basis for dialogue and improving relations in communities, especially communities of color, it's kind of become in some ways a very violent movement, in some ways a very, very far-left [movement] with an almost statist agenda."

Borealis and Ford did not return requests Wednesday asking for comment, but one of the newly launched fund's partners, the Movement Strategy Center in Oakland, California, praised the foundations for bringing resources to "this transformative movement."

"Ensuring that all Black Lives Matter, in this land and around the world, will require an infusion of assets into Black communities," said the center in an Aug. 8 statement.

In their July 19 announcement, Ford Foundation program officers Brook Kelly-Green and Luna Yasui said that, "Now is the time to call for an end to state violence directed at communities of color."

"And now is the time to advocate for investment in public services-including but not limited to police reform-together with education, health, and employment in communities for people that have historically had less opportunity and access to all those things," they said. "These are the reasons we support the Movement for Black Lives."

Ford and Borealis are hardly alone: They said the fund will "complement the important work" of charities including the Hill-Snowden Foundation, Solidaire, the NoVo Foundation, the Association of Black Foundation Executives, the Neighborhood Funders Group, anonymous donors, and others.

In addition to raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives, the Black-Led Movement Fund will collaborate with Benedict Consulting on "the organizational capacity building needs of a rapidly growing movement."

Ford has locked horns over Israel before: In 2003, the foundation announced after years of criticism that it would not renew its funding for leftist causes through the New Israel Fund, according to Forward.

The Black Lives Matter movement exploded in August 2014 after an officer shot dead unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Since then, police shootings of black men have prompted rioting and protests in dozens of U.S. cities, as well as the deaths of eight officers in separate incidents this year at demonstrations in Baton Rouge and Dallas.

Mr. Johnson confirmed that his organization, an advocacy group for police, has no grant-making alliance with Ford.

"We don't receive any funding from Ford. But yeah, thanks very much," he said with a laugh.

Not that he wouldn't take it. "Of course it would come in handy - look at what's going on across this country with the attacks on police," Mr. Johnson said. "We're not looking for a handout from Ford, but it would be nice to see groups like that or George Soros try to give some nuts-and-bolts help for people who are hurting, instead of throwing money around on grand schemes."

Click to Read More

Click to Hide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Lives Matter cashes in with $100 million from liberal foundations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For all its talk of being a street uprising, Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million from liberal foundations and others eager to contribute to what has become the grant-making cause du jour.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a photo which involves racial profiling which is a problem that involves the 4th amendment, and why its needed.

# data[].attributes.body
In this news article from CNN, written by Joan Biskupic on August 24, 2017 talks about an officer who was found guilty of racial profiling. Joe Arpaio was open about continuing to make stops and violations against latinos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To understand the building outrage, particularly among civil rights groups, over the possibility that President Donald Trump would pardon former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, one need only return to the July criminal contempt decision against him.

It followed a decade-long case against the sheriff for racial-profiling practices in Arizona, during which Arpaio was ordered to stop targeting Latinos for traffic stops and detention.

"Not only did (Arpaio) abdicate responsibility, he announced to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise," wrote US District Judge Susan Bolton in the July 31 order finding Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt.

The 85-year-old sheriff who lost his run for a seventh term in 2016 is scheduled to be sentenced October 5. Trump has strongly suggested he would pardon Arpaio before then, and CNN has learned that the White House was preparing the necessary paperwork and talking points to distribute to allies.

"Do the people in this room like Sheriff Joe?" Trump asked the crowd at a Phoenix rally Tuesday night. To applause, Trump said, "So was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job? ... I'll make a prediction: I think he's going to be just fine."

Yet it is plain that Arpaio was not convicted for doing his job. He was convicted for willfully disobeying the law after a court ordered him to stop singling out drivers based on ethnicity and detaining them without charges. Arpaio, who first took office in 1993, rose to national prominence for his crackdown on illegal immigration, earning the nickname "America's toughest sheriff" along the way.

He cultivated that reputation, and as Bolton's order makes clear, he was not going to let anyone tell him what to do.

Bolton's decision arose from a finding of civil contempt by US District Court Judge G. Murray Snow in the racial-profiling case of Melendres v. Arpaio, first filed in 2007. Beginning in 2011, Snow ordered Arpaio to stop detaining people based simply on a belief that they were in the country illegally, rather than suspicion that a crime has been committed.

Arpaio refused to comply, even though Maricopa County lawyers warned him about the magnitude of Snow's order and advised him not to pick up people unless grounds existed for state charges.

After the first order in 2011, Arpaio told various television reporters that he would "never give in to control by the federal government," that he would not "back down" and "if they don't like what I'm doing get the laws changed in Washington."

Bolton said that Arpaio and others in his department continued to round up people and try to turn them over to federal officials.

In 2013, as the racial profiling lawsuit was being resolved, Snow issued a permanent injunction preventing the sheriff's office from "detaining, holding, or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons were in country without authorization."

The order made clear that the sheriff lacked the authority to try to pursue immigration violations, and that Arpaio and his deputies would be violating the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures if they held people who were not suspected of committing state crimes.

Arpaio argued that he had authority to try to work with federal agencies to find immigration violations. Without agreeing with the premise, Bolton wrote that even if that were true, once Snow issued his first order in 2011 -- blocking the sheriff from picking up people for whom no criminal charges existed -- Arpaio was on notice that his practices violated Fourth Amendment rights and he had to stop the practice.

None of the warnings mattered to him, Bolton concluded, noting that Arpaio "stated on numerous occasions that he would continue to keep doing what he had been doing."

One of the possible Trump administration "talking points" for an Arpaio pardon, CNN has learned, is that he served the country for 50 years, from his days in the military to his time as Maricopa County sheriff and should not be sentenced for "enforcing the law" and "working to keep people safe."

Such a pardon, contends Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, would excuse "racist and illegal policing."

Gupta, a former head of the Justice Department's civil rights division in the Obama administration, said in a statement, "If President Trump uses his power to pardon a discredited law enforcement official who persistently engaged in racial profiling of the Latino community, it will not be a dog whistle to the so-called 'alt right' and white supremacists, but a bullhorn."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
why joe arpaio was found guilty - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Joan Biskupic, CNN Legal Analyst and Supreme Court Biographer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To understand the building outrage, particularly among civil rights groups, over the possibility that President Donald Trump would pardon former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, one need only return to the July criminal contempt decision against him.

# data[].attributes.body
In this Youtube video Uploaded by the National Constitution Center Explains what the 4th amendment is.

# data[].attributes.body
This article from CNN was written by Chloe Melas on October 5, 2016. The article states how Nick Cannon, a television host on the popular show 'Wild n Out' is very vocal on his feelings towards politics and how he uses his platform to educate and bring awareness to political issues like BLM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rapper, TV host, actor, advocate, producer and proud father is a busy man. Despite juggling multiple jobs, Cannon also makes time to take on several political and social justice causes close to his heart through his weekly "Spoken Word" videos.

In a recent wide-ranging interview, the San Diego native talked to CNN about why he's not voting for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, his artful approach to social media and co-parenting with Mariah.
You're somebody that's adding to the conversation these days on social media and using your platform as a celebrity to talk about important issues. Why?
I'm just a vocal person and a passionate person. I've always been the kind of person if something's on my mind, I'm going to say it and deal with any consequences or repercussions afterward. Part of my business is offending people. I use my loud voice and my over-the-top persona to actually express myself in a comedic way, but also when it comes to real issues.
The election is coming up and you've been very vocal about the fact that you might not even vote this year?
Absolutely [I'm voting]. I'm not voting for those two people [Clinton or Trump], at this point. To me, I truly believe that the presidential race is about a bunch of pageantry. It's a popularity contest. They're so focused on arguing with each other [as] opposed to the real issues that are going on in everyday America. They like to deal with what they call the hot-button topics but the things that people in these disenfranchised communities -- who are really looking to their leaders to change something -- they're not speaking on any of those issues.
Black Lives Matter is an issue that hits close to home for you. You've really made that the forefront of your Sunday "Spoken Word" videos. What do you think is the answer?
I feel like there are several answers, but the quick answer is we have to recondition the mindset of what a young black man means to America. For so long, we have been conditioned and programmed to fear young black men that we don't care about one another. There's this divide and conquer mentality that has been going on for so long -- all the way to slavery. It's unfair drug laws. I believe things like the prison industrial complex, that's real. That's modern day slavery. When we say black lives matter, we're not really stepping out there saying 'oh we're mad at an individual.' I truly believe it's a systemic problem. We know that there's good cops, but I don't know of a good system.
Are you worried for the future of your own son?
I am definitely worried for the future of my own children and I think that's one of the reasons why I'm so passionate about it ... It's a varied situation of making sure you make it home safely because ultimately that's all everyone wants to do. That's all the officers want to do. That's all the young person wants to do. Everyone just wants to get home safely. If we can respect each other in that sense as human beings, then I believe it's at least the right conversation to have. Dr. King always said it best, 'You've got to learn to live together as brothers or we are going to perish together as fools.'
When it comes to Instagram, it seems like you're very thoughtful about what you post. What's your thinking behind what you put out there?
The beauty of Instagram, for me, is that it does come off in an artistic way. Where on Twitter, it's just words.
You went through a really public divorce with Mariah Carey. You seem like you both co-parent really amicably. How do you do that?
I think that's what everyone should do. It goes back to that idea of you're supposed to be good parents. You take a situation that may not be so good and you make the best out of it. More than anything, I thank and appreciate my children. If anything, they are the ones that have to suffer through our schedules and our lives not coinciding with what we wish it would be regionally. I have amazing children. That's the main goal is to be the best parents to those children. Mariah and I are both on that same page. That's all we want is the best for our children.
Would you ever get married again?
Never. Not a chance. I'm firm I would never get married again. You can write that in stone.
You've been open about your battle with lupus. Tell me about how you're doing now?
I'm doing great, now. My doctor would probably say I need more sleep but proper exercise, putting the right things in your body and having people around you who care about your well-being is really important as well. Being healthy is a full-time job.
What's the most fun part about hosting America's Got Talent?
The kids. I love every aspect of seeing a young person accomplish their dreams. It's something magical when you see a kid out there that's uber talented and you see an entire theater go crazy for them. You see this glow of potential over this young person. It's unreal.
Do you feel like your role is even more important and meaningful because you know that young men and women are looking up to you?
Whether it's 'America's Got Talent,' or whether it's 'Wild N Out' or whether it's sitting here speaking to you, I always want to be the best me I can possibly be; uphold not just the legacy of African American men but just uphold my family values. I want to make my grandmother proud. I think if we all come from a place like that, it really resonates in a way to where we all want to be examples. I never want to be a role model, though. I believe a role is something you play. I attempt to be a real model and be as real as possible.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
social media and black lives matter - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nick Cannon talks politics and co-parenting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rapper, TV host, actor, advocate, producer and proud father is a busy man. Despite juggling multiple jobs, Cannon also makes time to take on several political and social justice causes close to his heart through his weekly "Spoken Word" videos.

# data[].attributes.headline
Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015

# data[].attributes.subject
Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015

# data[].attributes.body
The Racial Profiling Act of 2015 describes what is needed to prevent violations, which involves keeping records of claims and number of people who make claims against profiling.

# data[].attributes.body
This article from CRI written by Joe Dallas or originally written in Christian Research Journal , explains how the 4th amendment wrongly protects the right of pornography.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article first appeared in Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 03 (2004). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/
SYNOPSIS
Millions of people view pornographic magazines, DVDs, and Web sites each month. What appears to be a secular problem, however, is also prevalent among Christians. Because pornography has seduced a large number of Christians, it has impacted the church in three destructive ways: it creates a dependency that weakens the individual; it causes a disruption of the "one-flesh" union that weakens marriages; and it results in a distortion in thinking that weakens the ability to relate and function.

"The light of the body is they eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matt. 6:22-23) ¹

I remember clearly, and with inexpressible regret, the night I walked into an adult bookstore and entangled myself in the use of pornography. I was a 23-year-old former minister at the time, well on my way toward a fully backslidden state, and I was considering whether to indulge in the many sexual sins that I had, at that point, only allowed myself to imagine. That evening in the spring of 1978, my decision was sealed when I embraced what I now call the "dark magic."

The "magical" qualities of pornography were obvious and immediate. One glance around that roomful of graphic sexual images sent a rush through my system very much like a narcotic response. The longer I gazed, the more intoxicated I became, and over the next few hours the porn brought me temporary escape and exhilaration. I'd found a new drug, and it seemed to work beyond my expectations.

The darker aspects of this newfound magic soon became clear to me. I revisited the same porn shop nightly for the next two weeks. I then spiraled into the use of prostitutes, an affair with a married woman, homosexuality, and a five-year habit of reckless, degrading sexual practices. It began with the use of pornography, a product I continued to consume during my backslidden years, and which I have come to regard much the way an addict regards a drug - a destructive vice I have to strenuously avoid, always remembering its lethal impact on my life.
THE PROBLEM THAT GROWS UNNOTICED
That same lethal impact is being felt on a broader level today as pornography's availability has reached levels unimaginable 25 years ago. Through cable, videotape and DVD products, and the Internet, virtually anyone wanting to view porn is able to do so with minimal effort. The statistics on porn usage, therefore, while tragic, shouldn't be surprising:

During the single month of January 2002, 27.5 million Internet users visited pornographic Web sites.²

Americans spent an estimated $220 million on pornographic Web sites in 2001, according to a New York-based Internet research firm. (The same firm, Jupiter Media Metrix, noted that the $220 million figure was up from $148 million in 1999; Americans are expected to spend $320 million annually on porn sites by the year 2005.)³

In a national survey polling 1,031 adults, Zogby International and Focus on the Family found that 20 percent of the respondents had recently visited a pornographic site.⁴

Every month millions of people stop what they're doing to look at erotic images and, in most cases, pretend that they are sexually interacting with the women or men on display. It makes St. John's description of the world - a place dominated by the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes (1 John 2:16)
- chillingly relevant.

What, at first glance, appears to be a secular problem is, in fact, a problem more commonly found among Christians than any of us would care to admit. Over 18 percent of the men polled in the Zogby/Focus survey cited above, for example, identified themselves as Christian believers. 5 The Promise Keepers Men's Conference conducted an informal poll during its 1996 rally and this poll yielded even more dismal results when one out of three men in attendance admitted they "struggled" with pornography. 6 Finally, the Colorado-based Focus on the Family organization reports that 7 out of 10 pastors who call their toll-free help line claim to be addicted to porn. ⁷

The use of pornography is not restricted to men, either, as is often assumed. Thirty-four percent of the readers of the popular magazine Today's Christian Woman admitted to the use of Internet pornography, ⁸ and the Zogby/Focus poll indicated one out of every six women surveyed viewed pornography regularly. 9 James P. Draper, president of Life Way Christian Resources, was hardly exaggerating when he stated, "It appears the sin of choice among Christians today is pornography." ¹⁰

Considering the prevalence of pornography use among Christians, it's time we examine the effect it's having on individuals and families within the church and on our Christian witness in a secular and increasingly sexualized culture.
DEFINING PORNOGRAPHY
Webster defines pornography as "obscene literature or art." This leaves the term "obscene" open to interpretation since a good deal of socially acceptable material may be obscene to some while artistic to others. The legal definition of obscenity, however, as established by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1973, narrows the term:

1. While applying contemporary community standards and taken as a whole, it is something that the average person would consider appeals to prurient interest.

2. The work (or material) depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as specifically defined by the applicable state law.

3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. ¹¹

By this three-part standard, sexually explicit videotapes, DVDs, magazines, and Web sites qualify as porn. Honesty and common sense will also allow that any visual material used to incite an erotic response, even if the material is not generally considered obscene, becomes a form of pornography to the individual who uses it to that end. For the purposes of this article, however, we'll use the Supreme Court's definition as a reference point.
THE LETHAL EFFECTS OF PORNOGRAPHY
The use of pornography, I believe, weakens the church today in three significant ways: First, it creates a dependency on pornography that weakens the individual believer. Second, it causes a disruption of the "one-flesh" union that weakens Christian marriages. Third, it results in a distortion in thinking that weakens a Christian's ability to relate and function.
A Dependency That Weakens the Individual Believer
The value of personal freedom is an ongoing biblical theme. Adam was created under God's authority with the freedom to choose, manage, and procreate (Gen. 1:27-30); Israel's slavery was an evil that God sent Moses to confront and dismantle (Exod. 3-15); Jesus began His public ministry by announcing He had come, among other things, to set captives free (Luke 4:18); and Paul asserted that liberty is what God has called us to, that Christian liberty should be protected, and that bondage is to be avoided (Gal. 5:1, 13). The Judeo-Christian ethic places a high premium on personal freedom and condemns anything that restricts or prohibits a person from reaching his or her God-given potential. If liberty is good, it stands to reason that addiction - a dependence on a certain behavior or experience - is bad; and if something can be shown to be addictive, that in itself becomes a strong argument against it.

There are limits to this argument, to be sure. Most would agree that caffeine is an addictive substance, and yet coffee drinking is generally not frowned on; nor is the use of sugar, which many consider a relatively addictive substance. What distinguishes these substances from cocaine or heroin is the degree to which their use impairs a person's freedom and productivity.

A woman who drinks three cups of coffee daily, for example, is different than a woman with a thousand-dollar-a-day heroin habit. Both of them may be, in the strictest sense, dependent on their drug of choice, and so their freedom is impaired. The coffee drinker is not, however, in virtually all cases, significantly and functionally impaired by her drug. She can operate on the job, maintain focus and stability, and manage personal responsibilities quite well despite her habit. The heroin user, in contrast, is rendered largely dysfunctional by her drug, will often resort to illegal activities to support her use of it, and is affected by heroin in such a way that it becomes increasingly difficult for her to sustain even the most primary human relationships. Both women are in bondage to some degree, but there's a huge contrast in the nature of their bondage and in its impact on their general abilities.

The nature of immorality and its impact on a person's abilities are described in Scripture as "enslaving": "His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins" (Prov. 5:22). Peter described the false promise of freedom through immorality: "They allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness....While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage" (2 Pet. 2:18-19).

Bondage to a sexual sin - a growing dependency on the sin, similar to dependency on a drug - often goes unrecognized because addiction to a behavior is a relatively new concept to many people. Most mental health professionals agree that people can become addicted to chemicals. Many of them also recognize the possibility of becoming addicted to an experience. Those who believe in this possibility - myself included - believe addiction to an experience, such as gambling or the use of porn, follows a threefold pattern: the discovery of a hyperstimulating experience, the repetition of the experience, and an eventual dependence on the experience as a means of functioning or coping.
Discovery, Repetition, Dependence
When pornography is viewed for the first time - discovered, as it were - the viewer experiences a unique rush, accompanied by a strong sexual fantasy. The viewer is not, after all, simply enjoying the sight of another person's body, potent as that pleasure might be. He is also creating an imaginary bond with the image he's viewing, enjoying a false but potent connection in which he orchestrates and controls the entire sexual encounter. He has, in short, discovered a powerful and rewarding product, and like any consumer, he will be inclined to repeat its use until he no longer simply enjoys it but becomes dependent on it.

Christian counselor Robert Ellis describes this hyperstimulating experience much as one would describe a narcotic rush: "Use of pornography creates an exotic combination of internal stimulants which cascade through the bloodstream like liquid flesh. They create a sense of relief, excitement, exhilaration or pleasure - when these pleasurable, relieving surges get grooved into association with pornography, the flesh gains control over the spirit and the problem becomes one of addiction. It is not uncommon for pornography to elicit internal surges as addictive as cocaine." ¹²

This "addictive as cocaine" experience is shared by millions of pornography's consumers, as evidenced by the National Council on Sexual Addiction Compulsivity, which estimates between six to eight percent of Americans display symptoms of sexual addiction (percentages that translate into 16 to 21 million citizens). ¹³ Indeed, an MSNBC poll showed that in a sampling of 38,000 respondents, one out of every ten persons surveyed indicated they were addicted to sex on the Internet. ¹⁴

Any form of sexual sin is serious, whether or not the person committing it is "addicted" to the sin or indulging it only on occasion; but when a person becomes dependent on that behavior as a source of comfort or relief, the problem of sin is now accompanied by the problem of bondage. When numerous Christians have come under such bondage, the entire church, like a body with parts that are diseased or crippled, must suffer.
A Disruption That Weakens Christian Marriages
Further problems are created when the use of pornography invades Christian marriages. It will eventually disrupt the unity, both sexual and emotional, that is vitally crucial to stable marital life.

When a group of Pharisees questioned Jesus on the ethics of divorce (Matt. 19:4-6), He articulated a basic standard for the human sexual experience: sexual union is to be heterosexual ("He made them male and female"), independent ("a man shall leave father and mother"), and monogamous ("one flesh"). Paul added that within the sanctity of a monogamous and permanent commitment, husband and wife are to attend to each other's sexual needs (1 Cor. 7:4-5) and reserve their sexual energies for each other, thus preserving the uniqueness of their bond and avoiding moral transgressions (1 Cor. 7:2).

The benefits of a "one-flesh" union are confirmed elsewhere in Scripture. A cursory look at Old and New Testament figures confirms the wisdom of monogamy and the chaos introduced by infidelity, polygamy, or loss of sexual control, all of which play key roles in some of the Bible's greatest tragedies. Witness the bitter rivalry between Abraham's wife and her maid and the painful repercussions that result, the foolish loss of judgment that came with Herod's sexual obsession with his stepdaughter, the death of a child and permanent family curse caused by David's adultery, and the spiritual decline of Solomon's faith because of his appetite for foreign women. A fundamental lesson emerges: The one-flesh union provides psychological safety to individuals, stabilizes the family, and enhances productivity and order within the community.

Jesus further clarified the concept of the one-flesh union when He declared that adultery is not limited to actions but can also occur in the heart: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28). Pornography, which necessitates lusting after strangers, accordingly disrupts the one-flesh union, depriving husband and wife of the very benefits the Bible promises to those who remain monogamous.

In concurrence with the Bible, a growing number of secular theorists are also celebrating the wisdom of monogamous commitment. Studies show that it enhances the life span of men and women who practice it ¹⁵ and that the quality of life improves in proportion to the practice of fidelity. Drug and alcohol abuse dropped significantly among married test subjects in a University of Chicago study, and monogamous individuals made more money, had twice as much sex as their nonmonogamous counterparts, and experienced half the domestic violence of those studied who either lived together unmarried or lived alone. ¹⁶

In light of this, pornography is shown to be especially crippling to marriages, as it damages the ability of its users to maintain an ongoing, committed union. The claim that it is a harmless product and practice belies the biblical and secular evidence that it violates the one-flesh standard. The man using pornography violates this standard, whether he is married or single. If he is single, he violates it by engaging in random sexual fantasies with the innumerable women he views in magazines or pornographic Web sites. He is, in essence, attempting to enjoy the ecstasy of sexual union without any of its commitments or responsibilities and thus creates a false, temporal bond with phantoms. Since a one-flesh union is both authentic and exclusive, he is falling far short of the biblical standard.

When a married man uses porn, he violates the Matthew 5 standard as well: the sexual energy he has pledged to reserve for his wife is now being invested into his private fantasies. He is, in essence, embezzling from his spouse what is rightfully hers, and is instead spending it irresponsibly, much as a gambler steals funds from his employer to support his habit. What properly belongs to one person is thus stolen, making the term "cheating" all the more applicable.

Secular studies confirm the crippling effect of pornography on a person's ability to maintain a monogamous bond. Researchers Dolf Zimmerman and Jennings Bryant, for example, noted that continued exposure to pornography increased its user's desires for sexual contacts and behaviors outside their marriages, ¹⁷ and author Diana Russell found that pornography leads men and women to experience conflict, suffering, and sexual dissatisfaction. ¹⁸

Common sense would lead to the same conclusion. Each of us contains a limited amount of sexual/emotional energy, which will either be reserved for a monogamous bond or spent elsewhere. Our ability to sustain a bond with one partner cannot help but be impacted by the level of energy we've reserved for that partnership.

As a counselor, I see this principle played out repeatedly. When a husband engages in the use of pornography, his wife almost always notices a certain detachment on his part: less time, less sexual interaction, less attention. She suffers; he embezzles; everyone loses. Pornography systematically weakens marriages within the body of Christ, for it disrupts the bonds crucial to a healthy marriage.
A Distortion That Darkens the Christian Mind
The eye is indeed the lamp of the body (Matt. 6:22-23). If a person's eye is perpetually exposed to darkness, there comes an inevitable distortion in that person's thinking. It is in this darkening of the mind that pornography makes its leap from an act that is morally repugnant to one that has frightening consequences. "Evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor. 15:33), Paul warned, and the impact on the mind of a Christian consistently exposed to the wrong types of communication is immeasurable.

Zimmerman and Bryant, for example, found that continued exposure to pornography affected a male viewer's basic beliefs about sexuality in general and women in particular. ¹⁹ They likewise noted that exposure to porn increased its viewers' desires for deviant behaviors, such as sado-masochism, and also desensitized their attitudes toward rape. Psychologist Edward Donnerstein of the University of Wisconsin came to similar conclusions, noting that even brief exposure to violent forms of pornography led to antisocial attitude and behavior. ²⁰ Clinical psychologist Victor Kline concurs, noting that men who consume pornography on a regular basis experienced increased aggression in attitude and behavior, noticed an increase in "rape fantasies," and felt increased indifference toward women in general. ²¹

Like any drug, pornography's effects vary according to the general health of the individual who uses it. In other words, while a person will be adversely affected by using an illegal drug, the specific effect will probably vary from person to person. A person already predisposed toward violence may well become more violent when intoxicated; a person more inclined to depression may find himself acutely suicidal when under the influence. Similarly, not every porn user becomes a rapist or sexual deviant, but there can be no question of its adverse effects on the user's thinking.

I can testify to this first hand, both as a former user of pornography and as a counselor. Having discovered the "dark magic," I found myself increasingly withdrawn from genuine interpersonal relationships and more isolated, defensive, and detached. Accustomed to the false world of phantom relations, I found real relations less and less tolerable. I also developed a callousness toward women, which I repeatedly see in my clients. They existed for me - I visually used them daily via magazines and videos; I controlled them in my fantasy world; and I became less tolerant of any defects in real women as I spent more time in the company of unreal, though perfect, images of women. I had discovered a world in which both I and all around me would be perfect. In the shadowlands of pornographic imagery, people existed for my pleasure, and I existed to rule and indulge. In short, I had adopted a mindset so far away from the mind of Christ that I decided to usurp His authority for my own, thus completing the darkening of my mind.

C. S. Lewis alluded to this self-idolatry when he described the world of sexual fantasy as being "a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against a man ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attributes which no real woman can rival. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself." ²²
PIERCING THE DARKNESS
When a person is angry enough, scared enough, or frustrated enough, that person will take action. So it is with pornography. If you recognize its impact on your life, and you are sufficiently concerned to take action, that is the beginning of true change.

The journey away from pornography, like the journey away from sexual sin in general, is so simple it escapes many people. It can be reduced to three simple principles: repentance, discipleship, and accountability.

Repentance: Reject the behavior by separating yourself from it. If you have not separated yourself from it, you haven't repented. In practical terms, that may mean purchasing a filtering device (or switching to an Internet service provider that prohibits pornographic material from coming through), or doing away with the Internet altogether. It may mean discontinuing the cable service on your television. In short, do whatever is necessary to separate yourself from the behavior on which you've become dependent.

Discipleship: Establish yourself in the daily discipline of prayer and Bible study. If you do not have a regular devotional life, begin now by naming a book of the Bible you can begin reading today. If you haven't read the Bible before, or you've been out of the habit for a while, let me suggest the following books, and read them in this order to get you started: the Gospel of John, Romans, Ephesians, James, and Proverbs. Follow up these daily readings with a time of prayer, following the model of prayer Christ taught in Matthew 6:9-13. Prayer and the reading of Scripture are requirements for anyone wanting to renew his or her mind; they will diffuse the power of deeply ingrained sexual images.

Accountability: Start a relationship with at least one believer who knows about your use of pornography. Have this person ask you, on a weekly basis, whether you've repeated this behavior and how well you've resisted the temptations to repeat it. Remember, sexual sin thrives in the dark. A large part of recovery from it lies in your willingness to keep your private behavior in the light of another believer's scrutiny and prayers. This, like the daily discipline of prayer and Scripture reading, is required if you're serious about your repentance.
A BATTLE WORTH FIGHTING
After the English Parliament's 1938 appeasement in Czechoslovakia, Winston Churchill saw the danger of choosing peace when honor and common sense called for battle. "You have been given the choice between war and dishonor," he said. "You have chosen dishonor, and you will have war!" History, of course, would confirm his prophetic warning: refusing to fight an honorable battle may afford a temporary peace, but in the long run it's too costly. Delaying a necessary battle may well result in a devastating, full-scale war.

Every person who has become involved in sexual sin makes a decision between battle and dishonor. As always, dishonor looks like an easier choice. Dishonor means making peace with your sin. It means telling yourself that after so many years, it's become such a part of your life that trying to cut it out would be too traumatic and too uncomfortable. It would mean saying goodbye to a reliable (though destructive) friend, and the battle to abstain from this "friend," with all the temptations and struggles it would involve, seems too demanding, so a dishonorable compromise is therefore reached when a person decides to live in peaceful coexistence with his (or her) sexual sin.

Tyrants, however, never coexist peacefully; by their nature, they demand increased territory, fewer limitations, and more captives. The sin a person decides not to go to war against soon demands more territory. It begins invading career, family, health, and reputation. Now the person finds that what could have been a brief skirmish, if it had been attended to earlier, has become full-blown war. He chose dishonor over battle. In the end, he winds up with both.

If your mind has become a battlefield - darkened by the use of pornography, which has distorted your basic attitudes toward life - you have already yielded a good deal of territory, and your willingness to concede it has already cost a terrible price to you, your loved ones, and the church. God grant that today you find yourself ready to abandon the dark and see again how wonderful the true light can be.
NOTES

1. All Bible quotations are from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

2. Marilyn Elias, "Cybersex Follows Mars, Venus Patterns," USA Today, February 26, 2002.

3. Ibid.

4. "Zogby/Focus Survey Reveals Shocking Internet Sex Statistics," Legal Facts (Family Research Council), vol. 2, no. 3, March 30, 2000, cited in National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families Web site, "Current Statistics," http://php.eos.net/nationalcoalition/stat.phtml?ID=53.

5. Ibid.

6. "Pornography among Christians?" Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2001.

7. Ibid.

8. Ramona Richards, "Dirty Little Secret," ChristianityToday.com, http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/ 2003/005/5.58.html.

9. Zogby.

10. James P. Draper, quoted in Tim Wilkins, "First Person: How to Surf the Internet and Avoid Wiping Out to Porn," Baptist Press News, October 30, 2003.

11. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

12. Robert Ellis, "The Chemical Science of Pornography," AFA Online, http://www.afa.net/pornography/re011303.asp.

13. Alvin Cooper, et al., "Online Sexual Compulsivity: Getting Tangled in the Net," Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity 6, 2 (1999): 79-104.

14. Linda Carroll, "Addicted to Online Porn," June 27, 2000, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078769/.

15. Christina Hoff Sommers, The War against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), http://www.andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com/ 48.htm.

16. Ibid.

17. Dolf Zimmerman and Jennings Bryant, "Pornography, Sexual Callousness, and the Trivialization of Rape," cited in "The Documented Effects of Pornography," The Forerunner, http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0388_Effects_of_Pornograp.html.

18. Diana Russell, "Rape and Marriage," cited in "The Documented Effects of Pornography."

19. Zimmerman and Bryant.

20. Edward Donnerstein, "Pornography and Violence against Women," cited in "The Documented Effects of Pornography."

21. Victor Kline, "The Effects of Pornography," C.A.S.E, http://www.c-a-s-e.net/The Effects of Porn.htm.

22. C. S. Lewis, quoted in Laurie Hall, An Affair of the Mind (Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family, 1998), 111.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Darkening Our Minds: The Problem of Pornography among Christians - Christian Research Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article first appeared in Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 03 (2004). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/ SYNOPSIS Millions of people view pornographic magazines, DVDs, and Web sites each month. What appears to be a secular problem, however, is also prevalent among Christians.

# data[].attributes.body
In this news video, It shows a police officer who is being sued for violating this victims rights. The police officer lied and applied false charges.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ACLU sues police as 1st & 4th amendment violations caught on camera

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Connecticut police are being sued by the ACLU over trumped up criminal charges against a protester filming his DUI checkpoint experience. The officers inadvertently recorded themselves with the protester's confiscated cell phone, and unaware that it was still rolling and recording, they took it back to the patrol car, where it captured them plotting about what to charge him with and fabricating witness testimonies.

# data[].attributes.body
I decided to research about the 4th Amendment because, I feel like there is a lot of issues going on right now with the world. The 4th Amendment does play a big part in social issues.

# data[].attributes.headline
How much Money is Being Spent on Public Defenders?

# data[].attributes.subject
How much Money is Being Spent on Public Defenders?

# data[].attributes.body
In this report written by the U.S Department of Justice, revised April 21, 2015, states that between 2008-2012 Approximately 2.4 Billion dollars were spent on public defenders.

# data[].attributes.body
In this web link brought by The Legal Information Institute explains what the 4th amendment is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Interests Protected

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he 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 claim a violation of Fourth Amendment rights as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence, courts have long required that the claimant must prove that they were the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing. However, the Supreme Court has departed from such requirements, an issue of exclusion is to be determined solely upon a resolution of the substantive question whether the claimant's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, which in turn requires that the claimant demonstrates a justifiable expectation of privacy, which was arbitrarily violated by the government.

Exigent circumstances exist in situations where a situation where people are in imminent danger, where evidence faces imminent destruction, or prior to a suspect's imminent escape.

On the other hand, warrantless search and seizure of properties are not illegal, if the objects being searched are in plain view. Further, warrantless seizure of abandoned property, or of properties on an open field do not violate Fourth Amendment, because it is considered that having expectation of privacy right to an abandoned property or to properties on an open field is not reasonable.

In some states, there are some exceptions to this limitation, where some state authorities have granted protection to open fields. States can always establish higher standards for protection of searches and seizures than what is required by the Fourth Amendment, but states cannot allow conduct that violate the Fourth Amendment.

Where there was a violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights by federal officials, A Bivens action can be filed against federal law enforcement officials for damages, resulting from an unlawful search and seizure. Under a Bivens action, the claimant needs to prove that there has been a constitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment rights by federal officials acting under the color of law. This differs from a §1983 claim, which is filed against State/local officials for deprivation of rights. See also: Vega v. Tekoh (2022) and qualified immunity

The protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if one voluntarily consents to, or does not object to evidence collected during a warrantless search or seizure.

Searches and Seizures Under the Fourth Amendment

Courts must determine what constitutes a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. If the conduct challenged does not fall within the Fourth Amendment, then the individual will not enjoy protection under the Fourth Amendment.

A search under Fourth Amendment occurs when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Strip searches and visual body cavity searches, including anal or genital inspections, constitute reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment when supported by probable cause and conducted in a reasonable manner.

A dog-sniff inspection is invalid under the Fourth Amendment if the the inspection violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Electronic surveillance is also considered a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Seizure of a Person

Two elements must be present to constitute a seizure of a person:

First, there must be a show of authority by the police officer.
The presence of handcuffs or weapons, the use of forceful language, and physical contact are each strong indicators of authority.

Second, the person being seized must submit to the authority.
An individual who ignores the officer's request and walks away has not been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes.

An arrest warrant is preferred but not required to make a lawful arrest under the Fourth Amendment. A warrantless arrest may be justified where probable cause and urgent need are present prior to the arrest. Probable cause is present when the police officer has a reasonable belief in the guilt of the suspect based on the facts and information prior to the arrest.

For instance, a warrantless arrest may be legitimate in situations where a police officer has a probable belief that a suspect has either committed a crime or is a threat to the public safety.

Also, a police officer might arrest a suspect to prevent the suspect's escape or to preserve evidence.

A warrantless arrest may be invalidated if the police officer fails to demonstrate exigent circumstances.

The ability to make warrantless arrests are commonly limited by statutes subject to the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. A suspect arrested without a warrant is entitled to prompt judicial determination, usually within 48 hours.

For example, police officers can perform a Terry stop or a traffic stop.
Usually, these stops provide officers with less dominion and controlling power and impose less of an infringement of personal liberty for the individual stopped.

Investigatory stops must be temporary questioning for limited purposes and conducted in a manner necessary to fulfill the purpose.

An officer's reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify brief stops and detentions. To determine if the officer has met the standard to justify the seizure, the court takes into account the totality of the circumstances and examines whether the officer has a particularized and reasonable belief for suspecting the wrongdoing. Probable cause gained during stops or detentions might effectuate a subsequent warrantless arrest.

Seizure of Property

Warrant Requirement

A search or seizure is generally considered to be unreasonable without a warrant, subject to only a few exceptions.

To obtain a search warrant or arrest warrant, the law enforcement officer must demonstrate probable cause that a search or seizure is justified. A court-authority, usually a magistrate, will consider the totality of circumstances to determine whether to issue the warrant.

The warrant requirement may be excused in exigent circumstances if an officer has probable cause and obtaining a warrant is impractical in the particular situation. For instance, in State v. Helmbright, 990 N.E.2d 154, the Ohio court held that a warrantless search of probationer's person or place of residence is not violation of the Fourth Amendment, if the officer who conducts the search possesses "reasonable grounds" to believe that the probationer has failed to comply with the terms of their probation.

There is no general exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in national security cases. Warrantless searches are generally not permitted in exclusively domestic security cases. In foreign security cases, court opinions might differ on whether to accept the foreign security exception to the warrant requirement generally and, if accepted, whether the exception should extend to both physical searches and to electronic surveillance.

Reasonableness Requirement

All searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment must be reasonable and no excessive force shall be used. Reasonableness is the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a search or seizure. Searches and seizures with the warrant must also satisfy the reasonableness requirement.

In cases of warrantless searches and seizures, the court will try to balance the degree of intrusion on the individual's right to privacy and the need to promote government interests and special needs in exigent circumstances. The court will examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if the search or seizure was justified. When analyzing the reasonableness standard, the court uses an objective assessment and considers factors including the degree of intrusion by the search or seizure and the manner in which the search or seizure is conducted.

Exclusionary Rule

Under the exclusionary rule, any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment will be excluded from criminal proceedings. There are a few exceptions to this rule.

Electronic Surveillance

In recent years, the Fourth Amendment's applicability in electronic searches and seizures has received much attention from the courts. With the advent of the internet and increased popularity of computers, there has been an increasing amount of crime occurring electronically. Consequently, evidence of such crime can often be found on computers, hard drives, or other electronic devices. The Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure of electronic devices.

Many electronic search cases involve whether law enforcement can search a company-owned computer that an employee uses to conduct business. Although the case law is split, the majority holds that employees do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to information stored on a company-owned computer. In the 2010 case of City of Ontario v. Quon (08-1332), the Supreme Court extended this lack of an expectation of privacy to text messages sent and received on an employer-owned pager.

Lately, electronic surveillance and wiretapping has also caused a significant amount of Fourth Amendment litigation.

One provision permits law enforcement to obtain access to stored voicemails by obtaining a basic search warrant rather than a surveillance warrant. Obtaining a basic search warrant requires a much lower evidentiary showing. A highly controversial provision of the Act includes permission for law enforcement to use sneak-and-peek warrants. A sneak-and-peek warrant is a warrant in which law enforcement can delay notifying the property owner about the warrant's issuance. In an Oregon federal district court case that drew national attention, Judge Ann Aiken struck down the use of sneak-and-peek warrants as unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See 504 F.Supp.2d 1023 (D. Or. 2007).

The Patriot Act also expanded the practice of using National Security Letters (NSL). An NSL is an administrative subpoena that requires certain persons, groups, organizations, or companies to provide documents about certain persons. These documents typically involve telephone, email, and financial records. NSLs also carry a gag order, meaning the person or persons responsible for complying cannot mention the existence of the NSL. Under the Patriot Act provisions, law enforcement can use NSLs when investigating U.S. citizens, even when law enforcement does not think the individual under investigation has committed a crime. The Department of Homeland Security has used NSLs frequently since its inception. By using an NSL, an agency has no responsibility to first obtain a warrant or court order before conducting its search of records.

Another aspect of the Patriot Act, which has been highly confidential was the Telephone Metadata program, which under §215 of the Patriot Act, had allowed the NSA to collect data about Americans' telephone calls in bulk, was reviewed by the Second Circuit in ACLU v. Clapper, in which the Court held the telephone metadata program illegal under the Congress' original intent under §215.

Fourth Amendment and Supervised Release/Parole

Probationers (convicted criminal offenders who are released into the community under supervision of a probation officer in lieu of incarceration) or parolees (convicts who have served a portion of their judicially imposed sentence in penal institutions, and are released for the remainder of the sentence under supervision of a parole officer for good behavior) can also assert Fourth Amendment rights, creating a potential confrontation between fundamental constitutional guarantee and the society's legitimate interest in correctional programs to prevent offenders from lapsing back into a crime (recidivism).

Traditionally, courts have struggled with various theories of parole and probation to justify the complete denial of Fourth Amendment rights to offenders on supervised release or probation. The most prevalent of the theories was the "Custody Theory," under which an offender was said to be entitled to no more liberty than they would have enjoyed had they been incarcerated. Recently, however, this rationale was rejected by Morrissey v. Brewer, which emphasized that the parolee's status more closely resembles that of an ordinary citizen than a prisoner. While the Court noted that since parole revocation only changed the type of penalty imposed on an already-convicted criminal, the Court need not afford the parolees "the full panoply of rights" available under the fourteenth amendment to a free man facing criminal prosecution, the Court held that certain procedural protections must be guaranteed to the parolees facing revocation of the parole. In general, the released offenders now have been afforded full Fourth Amendment protection with respect to searches performed by the law enforcement officials, and warrantless searches conducted by correctional officers at the request of the police have also been declared unlawful.

However, in reviewing the searches undertaken by the correctional officers on their own initiative, some courts have modified the traditional Fourth Amendment protections to accommodate the correctional officers' informational needs, developing a modified "reasonable belief" standard, under which the correctional officer is permitted to make a showing of less than probable cause in order to justify the intrusion of privacy into the released offender.

[Last updated in May of 2023 by the Wex Definitions Team]

Federal Material

U.S. Constitution and Federal Statutes

Federal Court Rules

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Federal Rules of Evidence

Federal Judicial Decisions

State Statutes

International Material

Conventions and Treaties

Dealing with Human Rights (Including in the Criminal Justice Context)

Other References

Rights of Suspects and Defendants

ABA Criminal Justice Section, Committee on Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Police Practices Committee

Litigator's Internet Resource Guide: rules of court

Federal Judicial Center Publications

Senate Judiciary Committee

House Judiciary Committee

Vera Institute of Justice

Other Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Interests Protected The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he 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."

# data[].attributes.body
In this Supreme Court Case during 1973, a man was brought in for questioning after his wife's death. Without a warrant the police ran test under his fingernails, because of suspicion after seeing dark spots.

# data[].attributes.headline
Politian that supports the 4th amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Politian that supports the 4th amendment

# data[].attributes.body
In this article from CNN News writtn by Terrance P. Jeffrey on May 1, 2015 talks about Mike Lee, a Republican Senator thinks that the 4th amendment is at risk and we need to protect it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(CNSNews.com) - Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah says that the right to be free from unreasonable searches-which is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights-is at risk in America today.

"Do you believe that at this point in American history there is a concern that the government may be ready to, or is actually, breaching the bounds of the 4th Amendment restriction on power?" CNSNews.com asked Lee.

"Yes, I do," said Lee.

In his new book, Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Document, Lee tells the story of how and why the Framers expressly wrote into the Constitution certain specific limits on governmental power.

Among these was the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on government searching or seizing an individual's property or person without a warrant that could only be issued if there was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed and that specifically described "the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

In his book, Lee says that the Framers were inspired to include the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution by the story of John Wilkes. Wilkes was a British politician and writer whose house was ransacked and searched by the British government after he had pseudonymously written essays critical of King George III.

Wilkes, as Lee describes in his book, stood up to the king and his political allies and helped free the British people from the threat of "general warrants," which allowed the government to search the property of multiple persons without establishing probable cause of a crime or naming with specificity what the government was seeking.

In an interview with CNSNews.com about Our Lost Constitution, Lee likened the general warrants issued under King George III to the National Security Agency's mass and indiscriminant collection of the telephone records of millions of Americans.

Here is an excerpt from CNSNews.com's interview with Lee:

Terence P. Jeffrey: Do you believe that at this point in American history there is a concern that the government may be ready to, or is actually, breaching the bounds of the 4th Amendment restriction on power?

Sen. Mike Lee: Yes, yes I do. As I explain in my book, there are aspects of the data collection in which the federal government is involved today that some have analogized, understandably, to a general warrant. The government collects all this data, data on who you have called and who has called you, when they have called, how long you have talked, over the past five years. And it is all put into one searchable database. This is collected through government orders that are analogous to general warrants. This ought to be of concern to the American people, especially given our history with things like this.

If you remember the Church report that was issued in the 1970s-a Senate committee that looked into abuses of wiretapping. The Church Report concluded that every presidential administration from FDR through Nixon, leading up to the time that the Church committee performed it's investigation, had used our intelligence-gathering entities within the federal government to engage in political espionage.

Jeffrey: Do you believe that the electronic age we now live in where so much data and information is stored online and is in electronic servers and so forth, that there is a greater risk of this? That this actually increases the potential leverage of the government to violate the privacy of Americans?

Lee: Yes, just as the advent of the telephone led to wiretapping and the types of abuses that were discussed in the Church report, the risk of that kind of abuse has expanded yet again in the new information age, the new media age. That is why we have go to guard against this very carefully. Now, look, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to share this concern. I am not saying that I can prove or that I am necessarily convinced that this particular program is being abused today. I don't know whether it is. I am willing to assume for purposes of discussion that it is not. But what about a year from now or five years from now, ten or fifteen years from now. Eventually, we know how this movie ends because we have seen variations of the same movie before. It is just a remake.

Jeffrey: We need to be vigilant about it?

Jeffrey: Do you think there is an irony that a government that still has not secured our southern border against intrusion by foreign nationals whose identity we know nothing about actually was gathering everybody's telephone records at the same time?

Lee: Yes. We ought to be very concerned about that.

See the full interview here:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sen. Mike Lee: 4th Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches is at Risk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(CNSNews.com) - Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah says that the right to be free from unreasonable searches-which is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights-is at risk in America today.