A Living Amendment The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is the most essential amendment of all for criminal justice employees. This amendment lays the foundation for the criminal justice system and implements mandatory guidelines for government employees. When the Constitution was originally created, its sole intent was to impose limitations and restrictions on the federal government. The Constitution, as a living document, has changed over the years and has been continually interpreted to keep up with America's growing diversity and use of technology. The Complete Fourth Amendment in Itself The Fourth Amendment, like almost everything else in the Constitution, grew up through jurisprudence. These cases establish new norms and implement new boundaries for professionals in the courts, in the criminal justice field, and for any person acting under the authority of 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 realm of search and seizure of evidence, but when an individual is seized for the purpose of an investigative stop, this also falls under the umbrella of the Fourth Amendment (“Hess & Orthman,” 2012). Terry Stops was found to fall within the scope of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, investigation arrests require reasonableness. What is reasonable has been considered as articulated facts that cause an officer to believe that someone has committed, is committing, or will commit a crime. (“Florida Basic Recruit” 2010). When the government oversteps its borders there are numerous rules and doctrines in place to protect citizens from violating their rights; some differences in protection are afforded to government employees 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 a court of law. The Supreme Court ruled in Burdeau v. McDowell that unconstitutional searches and seizures must limit only the federal government. Before the days of the Mapp v. Ohio, evidence found at the state level was usually inadmissible in federal courts and vice versa. Mapp v. Ohio allowed states to adopt the exclusionary rule, making tests interchangeable between the state and federal levels. One might believe that with more areas covered by this ruling there is now more opportunity for liability.