Reasonable suspicion can’t be only a hunch. It has to be based on the facts at hand and the reasoning from those facts that will lead someone else under the same circumstances to believe that a crime has occurred. The standard reasonable suspicion only allows law enforcement to temporarily detain, question, and frisk. It does not allow officers to search or seize because that will require probable cause. Probable cause is a set of facts and circumstances that would lead someone to believe that someone else has committed a specific crime.
It is important that upon request, the criminal must be informed of their constitutional rights and must be allowed to exercise them. The Chief Justice Warren argues that when an individual is taken into custody, the Miranda warnings must be given. If not, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self – incrimination is jeopardized when the individual is deprived of his/her freedom. He also argues that the criminal can waive his/her rights and agree to make a statement once the Miranda rule has been given; though, a valid waiver is not presumed by mere silence. Chief Justice Warren further explained that the Miranda rule do not hamper the police in investigating crime because the general on the scene interrogation is not affected in any way.
Not every American Citizen knows their Constitutional rights, in fact, they may know some but not all their rights like having the right to feel secure in their persons, houses and papers. The fourth Amendment actually prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. But do Citizens know when is ‘ok’ for police officers to actually search their home, car, and other personal stuff? Before a police officer searches anything someone owns they must have reasonable grounds that they will find any type of drugs, weapons and or any ‘stolen goods’. If a serious violent has occurred, the police may enter and search without having any reasonable suspicious or any warrant.
Law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion and probable cause to pursue the defendant. A police officer, whom may have probable cause to believe that the defendant is in the process of a crime or a crime committed, is able to enter the garage to arrest the individual without an arrest warrant or search warrant. Under the fourth amendment the police officer is not required to delay his investigation to do so would endanger their lives and others. (Katz v. United States). Nonetheless, if the defendant is caught in a hot pursuit, and after the defendant’s vehicle has been impounded by the police, the defendant and officers have the right to search it for the purpose of making an inventory of the contents in the vehicle, used as evidence.
The second principle is that when searching an individual’s private home the reason should be focused on evidence to support the search. For instance, if the cops were to search the home of an individual accused of a crime any types of writings or plans that may be present in the home may be confiscated if they are deemed necessary in support of the search. The final principle is that a blanket warrant must not be used as a method of bypassing the first two principles. For example, if the authorities could not solve what kind of weapon was used or where the evidence would be located they cannot have a warrant that covers any possible scenarios in a broad range. The original notion of the Fourth Amendment was to enforce the belief that “each man’s home is his castle”
So, during a criminal investigation, an arrest occurs whereby the police has the legal and factual grounds to deprive someone’s liberty. This happens to question suspects for possible involvement in a criminal offence or if they hold any knowledge. In Spicer v Halt (1977), Lord Dilhorne stated, ‘Whether or not a person has been arrested depends not upon the legality of the arrest, but on whether he has been deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases’. This suggests, a person held against their will is arrested and in concluding whether the arrest is lawful or not has to satisfy the conditions of this. This leads to a lawful arrest is that of which is under a warrant, common law arrest and arrest under legislation.
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
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.
Probable cause is reason to believe that a crime has taken place or that the person’s property is in connection to some sort of criminal activity. In order to make an arrest without a warrant, probable cause must be present. Probable cause is a very important factor in the criminal justice system. No arrest, search or seizure can take place unless valid by reasonable belief. Searches that are made without a warrant, is deemed unreasonable with exception to exigent circumstances.
No one should be searched without a good reason and warrant. People should have the right of privacy- it is important to them. It is ethical for police to have search warrants before searching a person’s personal belongings. There have been recent conflicts on police powers over the pass years. Police are disobeying the fourth amendment by searching illegally.