Law Enforcement 's Use Of Illegal Search Warrants

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 of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).

What if police could barge into any house whenever they feel like it? In a world like this, citizens would have no privacy. People would have to be on alert 24/7 in case any unwelcomed visitors invited themselves inside without permission. The Background Essay: Search and Seizure: Did the Government Go Too Far? notes that the British government would inspect colonists’ houses for certain goods. In order to avoid such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment states that a search warrant and a reasonable cause is required before any government official is allowed to search another’s belongings. However, in some dire situations, a search warrant is not necessary. The Background Essay gives the examples, “…hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and/or permission of the suspect,” for when police do not need to worry about taking the time to receive a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is open to interpretation. As a result, there is a collection of various cases that need to be addressed that involve search and seizure. Such as the case of DLK. In this case, DLK’s house was searched by federal government officials with a thermal imager, which senses warmth, because he was suspected of growing marijuana. The question proposed is whether the use of such high-tech tools, like the thermal imager, count as a “search”. In a situation such as this, it is safe to say that the government went too

To understand this situation I decided to look up cases that reflect on their fourth amendment being violated. The case that stood out to me the most was Mapp vs. Ohio. In 1957, police officers received an anonymous tip that Mapp was hiding a wanted man because he needed to be questioned for a bombing. Then Police officers went to Mapp’s house and wanted to search her house. She then denied them entry, because she needed to see a warrant to let them in. After some hours went by, the police officers forcibly entered her home and recalled that they received a warrant. Then they proceeded with the search and found some books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. Then during her court trial she appealed her sentence, because they did not receive a valid search warrant and the police officers violated her rights. Even though they found her having possessions that were illegal, they could not hold it against her. The issues with search and seizure are usually towards the issue of violating our rights. One of the rights that we are getting violated is the right if privacy. It is the interest in being free from observation that matters to us, because they always try to know what people are saying and or doing without probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

In the 1987 case of Maryland v. Garrison, Garrison was convicted of violating Maryland’s Controlled Substances Act and Maryland filed and received a search warrant. However, the warrant only stated the premises known as 2036 Park Avenue third floor apartment but there were two apartments on the third floor. Before the officers executing the warrant became aware that they were in a separate apartment occupied by defendant, they had discovered what they needed for convection. Garrison sued claiming that the seizure was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. However, the court ruled that the warrant was valid when it was issued and the way it was executed was reasonable. The validity of the warrant was assessed based on the information the officer disclosed and the fact the warrant was reasonably executed as stated in the warrant itself and was within the realms of the Fourth Amendment. Taking this into account would mean that since the warrant was reasonably served to Chester O’Riley and then also reasonably executed, and the officers only obtained what was pertained to their investigation

All Americans are entitled to their rights. The Fourth Amendment states that we the people have to deny search and seizures from law enforcement without a warrant. The fourth amendment generally prohibits police from entering a home without a warrant unless the circumstances fit an established exception to the warrant requirement. According to the book The Constitution: Our Written Legacy by Joseph A. Melusky, the Fourth Amendment gives the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although we are entitled to these rights, police sometimes use and abuse their authority. In many cases, the Fourth Amendment has helped prove the innocence of one’s actions.

The United States v. Jones case is distinguished by the use of GPS tracking (as that was not an entity when the Fourth Amendment was created). Antoine Jones was arrested for drug possession after police attached a GPS tracker to his car for more than the allowed time the warrant held out for. With this case, the U.S. Supreme Court universally established that Americans have constitutional protections against GPS surveillance by law enforcement. In this day and age, GPS tracking is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. The founding fathers who put together the Constitution never imagined technology like this, so they had no reason to include examples like this case in the Fourth Amendment. As the Fourth Amendment

In this article, American Taught Police: Surveillance in the “Land of Freedom,” the author Nikki Jones talks and describes taught of being followed by technology everywhere you go. She talks about the consequences and the civil rights and liberties that the American Taught Police may steal form the citizen. She describes that device as the tracking device and that device follows you. She brings up the question of the fourth Amendment. The fourth amendment is supposed to protect the rights of the citizen through “Search and seizure.” In the second paragraph, the author, Nikki Jones, talks about how the FBI and the NSA collecting so much data without any warrants because there is a question of national security.

The chapter discusses how the goals of law enforcement are to locate the evidence for the crime and arrest suspects for committing the crime. A search can be defined as an invasion of a person’s privacy for the purpose of collecting evidence for a criminal proceeding. A seizure can be defined as when a law enforcement officer interferes with a person’s possessory interests in some meaningful manor. I have located an article that depicts the topic of an illegal search and seizures in drug operations specifically the no knock rule. The no knock rule in the United States is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without notice, such as entering without knocking or ringing a doorbell. Both article and

I feel that it is the responsibility of law enforcement to be fully aware of search and seizure laws so that a person’s civil rights are not violated. They are always changing, and it is the responsibility of the individual officer and their department to ensure that they are current with the changes. I recently finished my annual in-service and we had a half day dedicated to search and seizure when it came to DUI laws. When an officer violates a person’s civil rights in regards search and seizure, “any evidence derived from that search or seizure will almost certainly be kept out of any criminal case against the person whose rights were violated” (FindLaw, 2017).

In the case scenario presented by Professor Wilikins (2018) ask, “A police officer hears a rumor that Dave is selling illegal drugs out of his house. One day while patrolling the neighborhood, the officer sees Dave walking down the street. The officer approaches Dave and tells him he is worried about him and asks permission to search his house. Dave asks the officer if he must allow him to search his house. The officer responds by telling Dave that if he doesn't, he will go attempt to get a search warrant. Based on this, Dave consents to allow the police officer to search his house, and the officer finds over one hundred baggies of drugs.” The first question is, “Did the officer violate any of Dave’s constructional rights? The according to the Legal Information Institute (2017) the Fourth Amendments says, “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,

The Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect people from the searching of their homes and private property with search warrants. The founders believed that our freedom and the right to privacy would better be protected. Part of the reason we have this amendment was because of the King George. When he had started to tax the colonies, the colonist would change to other ways of getting goods. In some cases that meant smuggling in goods. King George used a “writs of assistance” which had been legal search warrants that had a broad range. As the British would use this to search the colonist pretty much at will for no reason. Many colonist felt that the King’s search and seizures to be unlawful, and to lack any probable cause for the search. This was a big reason why the founding fathers added this amendment to the constitution. This amendment would help to limit and restrain courts and officials from exercising power and authority in violation against any unreasonable searches and seizures.