A Living AmendmentThe Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is the most essential amendment of all for employees working in the field of criminal justice. This amendment lays the foundation for the criminal justice system and implements mandatory guidelines for government employees. When the Constitution was created, its sole purpose was to impose limits and restrictions on the federal government. The Constitution, as a living document, has changed over the years and has continually been interpreted to keep pace with America's ever-increasing diversity and use of technology. The Fourth Amendment is complete in itself The Fourth Amendment, like almost everything else in the Constitution, developed through case law. . These cases establish new rulings and impose new limits for court professionals, criminal justice fields, and anyone operating under or in place of the United States government. “The Fourth Amendment requires that all search or arrest warrants be based on probable cause, as stated by (Hess & Orthman,” 2012 pp. 196). The Fourth Amendment operates in the area of ​​search and seizure of evidence, but when an individual is seized for the purpose of an investigative stop, this also falls under the shadow of the Fourth Amendment ("Hess & Orthman", 2012). Terry Stops were found to fall under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, arrests for investigation must be reasonable. What is reasonable has been considered to be articulating facts that cause an officer to believe that a person has committed, is committing, or will commit a crime. (“Florida Core Recruit” 2010). When government oversteps its bounds, many rules and doctrines are in place to protect citizens from any violation of their rights; some differences in protection are available to government employees who are acting within the scope of their duties. Examples of these are known as the exclusionary rule and the good faith doctrine. The rule and good faith The exclusionary rule prohibits any illegally obtained evidence from being admissible in court. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Burdeau v. McDowell that unconstitutional searches and seizures are intended solely to restrain the federal government. Before the Mapp v. Ohio, evidence found at the state level was generally not admissible in federal court and vice versa. Mapp v. Ohio allowed states to adopt the exclusionary rule, making evidence interchangeable between the state and federal levels. One might believe that the more areas covered by this decision now come with more possibilities of liability..