Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the rules of search and seizures essay
Search and seizure
Search and seizure
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this paper I am going to discuss search and seizure and how it affects us and what effect it has on us. Search and Seizure is the fourth amendment in the constitution. Its purpose is to protect people from unreasonable searches. It also helps officers from making unlawful arrests.
How the exclusionary rule comes into play with search and seizure is that is helps courts to exclude evidence from a trial upon proof of evidence. Requirements for a search warrant must be supported by a sworn and have a statement made by law enforcement and must appear before a neutral judge.
A warrant must also be supported by probable cause and the warrant must describe the person person/place that is being searched and seized. One requirement for search and
…show more content…
When police showed up at the apartment it was trashed and the beds had been stripped and the first thing the police thought was that it was a murder. The officer then began to look around and started hearing a beeping sound and saw the victim’s cell phone beeping on the table. Now at this time the police officer did not have a warrant to search any of the victims stuff but despite his curiosity he picked up the victims phone and started going through her messages. When they went to court the judge had dismissed the case because did not obtain a warrant and had unreasonable evidence. The officer also violated the victim’s fourth amendment. An Example of a legal case is the United States v. The United States district courts on February 24, 1972 and ended on June 19, 1972. The U.S. had charged three different defendants on conspiracy to destroy government property. They ended up going to court because the defendant went to pretrial for the disclosure of electronic surveillance information. The government then cited an affidavit and it had been approved. The government then claimed that the surveillances, which were warrantless, was reasonable because they wanted to protect the national security. I hope you enjoy this paper as much as I enjoyed writing
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
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
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
In the 1914 landmark case of Weeks v. United States, the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule and was effectually created to protect people against unreasonable searches and seizures of the federal agents. The Court held that belongings or any evidence apprehended without a warrant or the defendant’s consent will be omitted in a criminal prosecuti...
The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action. This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor of the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technologic invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
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.
A seizure is the forcible taking of property by a government law enforcement official from a person who is suspected of violating, or is known to have violated, the law. A search to examine another's premises (including a vehicle) to look for evidence of criminal activity. It is unconstitutional under the 4th and 14thAmendments for law enforcement officers to conduct a search without a "search warrant" issued by a judge or without facts which give theofficer "probable cause" to believe evidence of a specific crime is on the premises and there is not enough time to obtain a search warrant.
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
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.
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement.
The main purpose and rationale behind the Exclusionary Rule is to deter the criminal justice system from taking items and facts through illegal means. The notion was to try to expurgated and terminate law enforcement dishonesty. This meant that there would finally be law enforcement that would do their best to protect everyone’s individual rights because an officer now had to have probable cause before arresting anyone or seizing their property. After the Exclusionary Rule was put in place, any time after the criminal justice system made illegal searches and seizures, any evidence that was found was thrown out in court.
The common-law power of search and seizure after arrest did not violate the defendant's rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention. The common law power had the legitimate aim of preventing crime and the disappearance of material evidence after the arrest of a suspect.