In order to prevent illegally searching or seizing the property of a suspect they have to make actions. What is the process to be able to make a search? Law enforcement personnel are in need of a search warrant. To qualify for a search warrant, law enforcement officers must be in possession of probable cause that must support the showing by oath or affirmation, and must explain in specific wording the place they will search and the items they will seize. A judge can find probable cause only be exploring all of the circumstances.This amendment is beneficial daily to thousands or millions of citizens and non-citizens that are in the United States. This amendment allows people in the united states to have privacy to their properties and also there personal things. Which every day in the United States, there are multiple cases where police officers search properties without a search warrant. Honestly I think that it depends on the situation whether or not a police officer has the right to search properties with or without needing a search warrant. I consider searching without a reason or without probable cause is pathetic. Police Officers or anyone has no right to search someone's property just because they feel like or anticipate that someone has possession of illegal substance or drugs. What would the United States be like without the search and seizure law? The United States would be in a mess, but at the same time would be making more drug busts, and would take everyone's privacy rights away. Did you know that the government keeps a track of everything that is happening and everything that has happened on your phone or electronic device? I think that is a positive thing. Not only do i think its a positive thing , I also di...
... middle of paper ...
...fficer permission to search there house any time they want to for any reason. On the other hand, if you are not on probation and you don’t have your fourth amendment right wavered, they can not search your home without a search warrant. Payton vs. New York states “Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are quite unreasonable.” Not only do schools, school students, homes, and cars have search policies and rules, there are actually policies due to searching a particular person. The guideline to searching people is a piece of cake. Terry Vs. Ohio states a pat down of a persons outer clothes are able to done if articulable reasonable suspicion is available , this is also known as (ARS). There is another beneficial case that protects people from getting searching unreasonably or without any type of probable cause, this is known as Minnesota vs. Carter.
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
I believe this United States Supreme Court case is particularly important because it ultimately defends a person?s Constitutional right to privacy. As stated before, until this decision was made, the search and seizure laws were given little consideration. Although there is always an exception to the rule, for the most part, evidence that is obtained in a way that violates a person?s Constitutional right is inadmissible in Court. This decision has most definitely refined the laws of the admissibility of evidence and the procedures followed by those in law enforcement.
The Fourth (IV) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses paper, and effects 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" (U.S Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Legal Information Institute). The fourth amendment is a delicate subject and there is a fine line between the fourth amendment and 'unreasonable search and seizure. '
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
Privacy comes at a cost. It brings people who fight for the people the privacy of others when it is violated together. Cops not being able to search when they seize a cell phone makes them risk their lives because how people these days are, there could be bombs in the phone. Even though this amendment was ratified, people to this day still don’t have privacy they rightfully deserve. This effects me because I’m able to keep special information to myself. Also, if a police pulls over a family member and ask for their phone to investigate without giving a proper reason or having a warrant, that family member could say no. If a police hasn’t given you a good reason to hand something over, you have the right to resist or else the police are being unconstitutional. This amendment gives people the safety to do what they want(that’s legal). It also makes life better, but harder. Life is harder with this amendment because you have to watch out for who you trust that they won’t do anything to jeopardize your safety. This is relevant because a man in Indiana was tracked down by a GPS. It didn’t violate his 4th Amendment because the police got a warrant to put a tracking device in his mom’s car. This case represents how technology gives advantages and disadvantages. An advantage was that they were able to track him down for a burglary. The disadvantage would be that if they hadn’t gotten a warrant, he could have filed a lawsuit against
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
The amendment that raises my own eye is the Search and Seizures Clause of the Fourth Amendment. Like most of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment has its origins in 17th and 18th century, English common law. Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment's origins can be traced precisely it arose out of a strong public reaction to three cases from the 1760s, two decided in England and one in the colonies. Two cases from England, “Entick vs. Carrington” and “Wilkes vs. Wood”, involved plaintiffs who produced pamphlets criticizing the government. During the arresting, officials seized books and papers from the plaintiff’s property. A court agreed that the officers’ actions constituted trespassing. The third case occurred within the colonies and involved “writs of assistance,” which permitted officials to search for smuggled goods without specify which house or what goods.
One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
In chapter seven, Joel Samaha discusses a wide range of special need searches. Special-needs searches are generated by government interest in the public setting. According to Samaha, special-needs searches consist of four characteristics: 1. they’re directed at people generally, not criminal suspects and defendants specifically, 2. they can result in criminal prosecution and conviction, 3. they don’t require warrants or probable cause, 4. their reasonableness depends on balancing special government needs against invasions of individual privacy. Special-need searchers are routine searches in which ensure the safety of those in the general public. The most common of searches are inventory searches, international border searches, and airport
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.