Assignment task: Respond to the essay below.
Federal Judge Peterson ruled the two Monona Police Department officers' actions a violation of Furdge' Fourth Amendment right. This article talks about the ruling of the 2020 case connecting to the Fort Amendment' rights as well as the details of this case. In the summer of 2020, Furdge was held at gun-point and handcuffed by two Monona police officers at his house. Judge Peterson ruled the officers indeed had violated Furdge's Fourth Amendment's rights, as they entered the homes without a warrant, guns-drawn, and with no-knock entry. But he goes on to claim that although the officers' actions are wrongful, he believes that they did not show malice or reckless disregard for Fudge's rights and will not grant him any punitive damages. Furdge's attorneys believes that it is a win for Fudge, and hopes that this decision can " remind all police officers in Wisconsin of that fundamental right: In America, police cannot enter a home without a warrant and without probable cause."
Government's search procedures should be promoting public safety, but it is more often ended up as an interference of individual's rights and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In the case of Furdge and the two police officers, the court ruled the officers' house search as a "clear-cut" violation of Furdge's Fourth Amendment's rights. The judge states that the officers entering a house without a warrant even with probable cause is still unlawful. In this case, the judge also ruled that the officers did not show malice or a reckless disregard for Fudge's rights. This shows that the officers or government's search procedures all have the intention of promoting public safety, but it resulted in interfering and violating people's constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment clearly shows that it is to "protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government." Showing that the government's search procedures are very capable of interfering with individuals rights.