Law Enforcement Officers Have Policy Regulations they Must Obey

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

Some of these rights are the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, the right against arrest without probable cause, the right against self-incrimination, the right to an attorney, and the right to fair questioning by the police. All of this is part of the Due Process Model but one thing the Due Process Model calls into question is, do the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the many? (Perron)

Third, the area to be searched and any item to be seized must be described with particularity (Hall, 2016.) There must be very specific information to obtain a search warrant. A warrant that authorizes a police officer to search a particular home for “unauthorized contraband” violates the Fourth Amendment (Hall, 2016.) A warrant authorizing a search of the same home is valid, provided the warrant is valid in all other respects (Hall, 2016.) The items seized must be very specific and usable items to convict the criminal of his or her actions within the act.

The officers have the right to search in the case of plain-view doctrine (Schmalleger, 2012). It can be understood with an example; if an officer goes to a doctor for assistance or medical help and during the process, he sees drugs; in this situation, he can legally forfeit him and make an arrest at the moment. The plain view doctrine applies under legal circumstances and in the places where the police officers have a valid right. All these searchers and reasons are persuasive and influential (Schmalleger, 2012).

It is vital for law enforcement to determine whether a search warrant, arrest warrant, or both is needed. When an arrest is to take place within a dwelling where reasonable privacy is expected, law enforcement must determine whether or not the prospective arrestee lives there. If the person to be arrested lives there, only an arrest warrant is needed. If the dwelling belongs to a third party, an arrest warrant and a search warrant is necessary. In order to comply with the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy, police must secure the appropriate warrant(s) and knock and announce their presence.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful seize and searches; therefore, officers need to have a search warrant to enter a dwelling. In the Supreme Court case of Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court announced the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained during a search that violates a person’s constitutional rights can be inadmissible in court (Hendrix, 2013, p.162). Dollree Mapp requested a search warrant and the present of a lawyer. She did not give the police the consent to enter her home. However, in the situation concerning the marijuana, plain view doctrine allows officers to seize contraband that is visibly seen on a person’s premises. Plain view is not considered a search; therefore, it is

In the Plain View Doctrine, it is legal that when attempting a search for another means, a public official can seize other evidence that may not be accompanied with that crime as the findings are of criminal activity. Even though, a police officer may have already secured a warrant but have specified what their findings will be in detail, there are still loopholes even within their statement, Horton v. California. Therefore, even when inadvertently seizing the evidence, it is still confined as validified evidence due to the officer’s lawful right to seize something even if there is no warrant. In general, even with the exceptions to the requirement of warrantless searches, there has to always be a general rule that even the cases above me have to inquire within their proposed holding of the case and its circumstances. Most searches and seizures, warrantless or not, are

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was created so authorities should need a warrant to search a home or property, for U.S. citizens have freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions, and for all searches and seizures must be reasonable. Although, an officer should be able to search on the spot if they feel they have probable cause. “The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the

The first is that there must be a valid justification for law enforcement to intrude into a zone of privacy. Valid justifications for the plain view doctrine include during an arrest, a search incident to arrest, a protective sweep, a stop and frisk, during the execution of a valid search warrant, during a controlled delivery that involves incoming goods from a foreign country, in hot pursuit, in response to certain

The fourth amendment deals with search and seizure. Although they go hand and hand, they are two different things. In order to do a search you need to obtain a search warrant. A search warrant is a permission, signed by a judge that allows law enforcement to enter private property to look for certain items. It is addressed to the owner of the property, notifying them that a judge decided that the certain item with be found there. In order to obtain a search warrant, law enforcement must show that there is probable cause to believe a search is needed. Judges, considering the circumstances, will decided whether to sign off on it or not. It is illegal for law enforcement to search anything without a warrant. With search warrants, comes arrest warrants. An arrest warrant is an official document, signed by a judge, which authorizes law enforcement to arrest whoever is on the warrant. To obtain an arrest warrant, law enforcement submits a written affidavit to a judge, showing facts that a crime was committed and the person named in the warrant committed it.

The plain view doctrine permits an officer to seize evidence without a warrant, if the officer is in a legal position to see the evidence (Hall, 2015). In my police academy law classes our instructors would state right to be, right seize. The plain view doctrine relies on the following elements for a warrantless seizure to be lawful, which includes the officer must lawfully be in an area from which the object to be seized is in plain view, and the officer does in fact, identify the item (Hall, 2015, p. 424). Additionally, the officer possesses probable cause to believe the object is connected to a crime, and the officer has a right to access object itself. The officer may not manipulate something with the intent of gaining a better vantage

The Fourth Amendment mandates that “probable cause” must be demonstrated in order for law enforcement personnel to obtain a warrant. Probable cause is obtained by law enforcement personnel proving to a judge that there is a high expectation of evidence of a crime being located upon the person, or within the location, they wish to search (Hill & Hill, 2014). Federal law does allow law enforcement to conduct a search without a warrant. The exception is for

There are many principles of government, including Individual Rights. Individual Rights is a principle of government that means citizens have certain rights without getting removed. The Bill of Rights has many amendments, including the first, which is the right to have freedom of speech or protest.

Making an arrest is taking a person into custody for any number of offense or crimes committed. From DUI to murder an officer can be confronted with any number of situations. When officers make an arrest, it is dangerous because the subject can become combatant and hurt the officer or even get himself hurt. In situations, such as when a subject resists arrest and officer may use force to do whatever is necessary to get control of the subject.