MOUNT VERNON — “A man’s home is his castle” is basically the Fourth Amendment in a nutshell, according to Constitutional Lecture Series presenter Phillip Lehmkuhl. Speaking Wednesday at the Memorial Theater, Lehmkuhl discussed the language of the Fourth Amendment and cited some historical circumstances which led to its inclusion as part of the U.S. Constitution.
Part Ten: Search,arrest warrants September 16, 2010
Part Nine: Right to bear arms September 16, 2010
Part Eight: Bill of Rights starts with expression September 9, 2010
Part Seven: Constitution ratified on promise of Bill of Rights September 9, 2010
Part Six: Guarding legal rights September 2, 2010
Part Five: Freedom of religion September 2, 2010
Part Four: Small parts have big meaning August 26, 2010
Part Three: Evolution of ‘We the people’ August 26, 2010
Part One: Creating a perfect union August 19, 2010
Part Two: Separation of powers August 19, 2010
Series to touch on Constitution August 13, 2010
U.S. Constitution National Archives
“The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects,” states the amendment, “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.”
Lehmkuhl said the Fourth Amendment limits the ability of government to engage in searches and seizures of people and things. The government, or its agents in the form of law enforcement personnel, must first obtain a search warrant supported by an oath or affirmation. Mere suspicion of illegal activity is not enough. The warrant request must be based on “probable cause” to believe a suspect might be found, or evidence of a crime or contraband might be found. The warrant must specifically describe what is to be searched and what, or whom, is to be seized.
Founding Fathers drew upon historical events, English court cases and personal experience in framing the Fourth Amendment, Lehmkuhl said.
Sir Edward Coke, in 1603, rendered a court decision in Britain in what is known as the Seymans case. He ruled that “the house of every one is to him his castle and fortress.” Lehmkuhl said that principle has come down to us and means one’s home is protection against the government and all others. Coke, however, added the king, the source of all power at the time, “may break into the house to apprehend the felon.” In other words, explained Lehmkuhl, no right of a peasant or a subject was superior to the right of the king.
That idea changed over time. William Pitt, two years before becoming Prime Minister of England, addressed Parliament in 1793, and advocated for the sanctity of the home, even of the poorest man in the land. He declared the king should not be able to enter a home for any reason.
