Limitations of the 4th and 14th Amendments During the Reagan Administration
Both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments have been under criticism for decades. ... During the 1980’s, the conservatives of the Reagan Administration would take firm action against these amendments by imposing several limitations on these freedoms. ... The Bill of Rights, of course, is “the first ten amendments to the Constitution adopted by Congress in 1789 and ratified by the states in 1791” (Scheb and Scheb II 2002). ... The Fourteenth Amendment is much different from the other amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. Throughout much of the nineteenth century, the Bill of Rights was viewed as imposing limitations only on Congress, having no effect on state legislatures or local governing bodies. ... This is good news for citizens, but not everyone was so pleased with these new federal limitations on state and local law. In fact, the Reagan Administration would almost completely seek to reverse the effect of these modifications on law with limitations of its own. Ronald Reagan, the 39th US president, would lead a new reform against the infamous exclusionary rule. ... The plain consequence of treating the wrongs equally is a grievous miscarriage of justice: the criminal goes free; the officer receives no effective reprimand; and the only ones who really suffer are the people of the community” (Reagan 1981). Here it is obvious that Reagan has a biased opinion against the implications of the exclusionary rule. Reagan’s claim is that there is no legitimate reason for the existence of such a “rule. ... Reagan’s political position on the matter of the exclusionary rule set the tone for the legislative and judicial bodies of the nation. Throughout his administration, many changes (and in some cases exceptions) would be made concerning this delicate issue. ... Another interesting limitation that was introduced during the 1980s was the “open fields doctrine. ... With all the limitations and exceptions created during this period, one might be inclined to ask “why. ... Primarily, it appears that these limitations are extremely necessary in order to prevent criminals from being released due to a “loop-hole” in the law. ... Therefore, if the exclusionary rule provides for a way out for criminals, then these limitations are indeed necessary. ... My personal theory is that limitations to the exclusionary rule were created in order to cover situations in which law enforcement officers would make errors obtaining evidence. The limitations give the officer a little more freedom in his/her investigations of illegal activity. ... How disheartening it must be to work so hard and then see the criminal acquitted during court because of a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights; it’s like a slap in the face of the police. ... Many conservatives, like those of the Reagan-era, are still looking for ways to further limit the influence of the Fourth Amendment in our legal system. ... The Reagan Administration failed to grasp this vital point. By establishing various limitations to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, they were attempting to remove the very thing that protected citizens against improper searches and seizures.