Fourth Amendment; Amendment IV;

   Fourth Amendment; Amendment IV;

ID Semântico:	marcilio:fourth-amendment-amendment-iv
Classe:	Direito Comparado
Nível Técnico:	Profissional
Origem do Termo:	Inglês
Áreas de Foco:	Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
Jurisdição:	EUA/Brasil

Progresso do texto
		Início
		Básico
		Criação
		Desenvolvimento
		Maturação
		Revisão
		Desenvolvido
		Finalização
		Abrangente

Significado Prático

1. Fourth Amendment; #Amendment IV; →\n#Quarta Emenda.\nTag: #4th Amendment; #IV\nTexto do Amendment IV:\n• The right of the people to be secure in their\no persons,\no houses,\no papers, and\no #effects, → bens móveis\n• against unreasonable searches and seizures,\n• shall not be violated, and\n• no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable\ncause, → mandados de busca e apreensão\napenas poderão ser expedidos se houver\nindícios suficientes / justa causa\n• supported by Oath or affirmation, and →\ncom fundamento em declaração feita sob\njuramento ou compromisso\n• particularly describing the place to be\nsearched, and → descrevendo em detalhes\no local em que a busca será realizada\n• the persons or things to be seized\n(apreendidas).\n\n• Veja:\no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth\n_Amendment_to_the_United_States\n_Constitution\n\no https://www.law.cornell.edu/constit\nution/fourth_amendment\n\n4 - #Good Faith Exception →\nexcessão da boa-fé\n• Under the good-faith exception,\n• evidence is not excluded if it is obtained by\nofficers who reasonably rely on a search\nwarrant that turns out to be invalid.\n• See Arizona v. Evans.\n• Also, in Davis v. U.S.,\n• the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the\nexclusionary rule does not apply when the\npolice conduct a search in reliance on\nbinding appellate precedent allowing the\nsearch. → precedente vinculante\n• Under Illinois v. Krull, evidence may be\nadmissible if the officers rely on a statute\nthat is later invalidated. → lei invalidada\nposteriormente\n• In Herring v. U.S., the Court found that the\ngood-faith exception to the exclusionary rule\napplies when police employees erred in\nmaintaining records in a warrant database.\n\nArizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995),\n• was a United States Supreme Court case in\nwhich the Court instituted an exclusionary\nrule exception\n\n• allowing evidence obtained through a\nwarrantless search\n• to be valid when\n• a police record erroneously indicates the\nexistence of an outstanding warrant →\nmandado de prisão em aberto\n• due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court\n(servidor do Judiciário; escrevente\njudiciário).\n\n\nDavis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011)\nHolding\n• Searches conducted in objectively\nreasonable reliance\n• on binding appellate precedent →\n/əˈpelət/\n• are not subject to the exclusionary rule.\n\n\nIllinois v. Krull (1987)\nFacts of the case\n• The state of Illinois required all who sell or\nscrap motor vehicles or parts to obtain\nlicenses.\n• That law also required anyone with a license\nto allow police to inspect their records at\nany time without a warrant.\n• Albert Krull operated a wrecking yard.\n\n• During a routine records inspection, police\nfound four stolen cars on the lot.\n• The men were arrested and charged with\nseveral criminal violations of Illinois motor\nvehicle laws.\n• The next day, the Illinois Supreme Court\nstruck down (declarou inconstitucional) the\nlaw\n• that allowed police officers to inspect\nrecords without a warrant.\n\nQuestion\n• Does the good faith exception to the\nexclusionary evidence rule\n• apply when a police officer relied on a\nstatute that was later held unconstitutional\n(declarado inconstitucional)?\n\nConclusion\n• Yes. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Harry A.\nBlackmun wrote the majority opinion (voto\nvencedor) reversing and remanding\n(devolvendo o processo para a instância\ninferior).\n• The Supreme Court held that the\nexclusionary rule does not apply because the\nofficer acted in good faith.\n• The officer’s reliance on the unconstitutional\nlaw was objectively reasonable when he\nconducted the search.\n• Excluding the evidence in this case would\nnot support the policy behind the\n\nexclusionary rule to deter #police\nmisconduct (#abuso pela polícia; abuso\npolicial).\n• The Court followed United States v. Leon\n468 U.S. 897 (1984) where police conducted\na search with a warrant that they later found\nout was defective.\n_________________\nfim do verbete fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree\ndoctrine\n________________________\n\n\n\n\n

Simplificação de Linguagem (Lei 15.263/2025)

Abaixo, a comparação prática de aplicação do termo sob a ótica do acesso à justiça:

Redação Formal (Juridiquês)	Redação Cidadã (Linguagem Simples)
"O correspondente para o termo 'Fourth Amendment; Amendment IV;' em processos transnacionais..."	"#Fourth Amendment; #Amendment IV; →..."

Detalhes Classificatórios

• Áreas do Direito associadas: Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
• Classe Terminológica: Direito Comparado
• Natureza Jurídica: Termo e Conceito Estrangeiro
• Nível Técnico sugerido: Profissional

Aspectos Linguísticos

• Idioma originário: Inglês
• Etimologia: Origem da linguagem jurídica norte-americana / direito comparado.
• Pronúncia ou leitura recomendada: Fourth Amendment; Amendment IV;

Referência Bibliográfica

• Dicionário Marcílio Atualizado Constantemente (2024)