A summary of the provisions of the Bill of Rights is supplied below:. The protections afforded the citizenry in the Bill of Rights are also extended to corporations and commercial activities. In the next sections, some applications of the various amendments in the area of business are discussed.
The freedom of speech provisions in the First Amendment have application to corporations. The courts distinguish between different types of speech, and each has implications for the power of the federal government and states to regulate in these areas:.
The free exercise clause of the First Amendment states that government is prohibited from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Issues pertaining to this clause often arise in organizational settings. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that citizens are free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires government officials to obtain search warrants to conduct searches. However, government officials can only request a search warrant if they have probable cause to believe that criminal activity is occurring at the location of the search, or that they will locate evidence of criminal activity during the search except where the official believes items will be removed prior to obtaining a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment protects individual organizations and places of business, as well as residences. However, under the terms of the pervasive-regulation exception, administrative agencies can conduct warrantless searches of businesses attached to industries that have a long history of pervasive regulation. For example, public health agencies are allowed to conduct warrantless searches of stone quarries, as authorized by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of For commercial enterprises and businesspeople, it is the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment that offers the most extensive protection.
Specifically, there are two types of due process:. Another clause contained in the Fifth Amendment that is relevant to commercial enterprises is the takings clause. According to this clause, when the government seizes private property for public use, it is required that the government pay the owner just compensation for the property.
Just compensation is understood to be equivalent to the market value of the property. This clause has been broadly interpreted. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and illegal 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, N. Other well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement include consensual searches, certain brief investigatory stops , searches incident to a valid arrest , and seizures of items in plain view. 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 surveillances.
All searches and seizures under Fourth Amendment must be reasonable. 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. On the other hand, warrantless searches and seizures are presumed to be unreasonable , unless they fall within the few exceptions. 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.
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. 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 case of City of Ontario v. Quon , 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-peak warrants. Mitchell and F. Delaney and Kristina M. Kahlon and Aron C. Thomas and Michael P. Neifach and Otieno B.
Porzio and Joshua S. Bryan What a Deal! Ferrante and Nathaniel M. Porzio and Elizabeth A. Bourne and Daniel J. Ferrante and Jana L. Kolarik Judge Leonard P. Lovitch and Rachel E. Ryu and Connor J. Leahy and Stacey A. Fehling and Michael S. Updates from the Fifth Circuit and Yuengert and J. Cohen and Mark E. Howell and Christi A. Harrison and T. Dobry and Eric J. Miller and Tinny T.
0コメント