Search And Seizure Has Recently Been A Communal Debated

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s

The right against improbable searches and seizures is often seen as a right that can easily be infringed upon and justified with the concept of maintaining the general welfare of this country and its people. One does not posses a comprehensive right to privacy against the invasion of personal belongings or files like many believe, but there are certain restrictions on what of one’s personal belongings can be accessed through ex officio approbations. An example of legal things riding close to the line of infringing on one’s fourth amendment right is search and seizer if warranted by probable cause according to the Huffington Post. Meaning that one’s private information, including someone’s home and person, can be searched if there is a plausible suspicion to the endangerment to others. The issue that many have with

These exceptions are indeed consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure for the previously stated reasons. With regards to open field searches the court finds that the Fourth Amendment only protects the privacy of the individual and their property within a close proximity to the curtilage of their home. Warrantless search of an open field amounts to little more than trespassing rather than a violation of a constitutional right. With regards to the search of objects in plain view. The court has held that objects in plain view have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy simply, and clearly because of the fact that the owner of these personal effects has not afforded the kind of privacy over these

Unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures should not take place because it violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution by depriving the right to privacy. A search is when an individual's privacy is violated; the privacy of an individual is violated by a Government employee or agent. When a search occurs, a warrant must be present or the privacy of the individual is deprived; one’s privacy is also deprived when a warrantless seizure occurs. The seizure of property is when the government takes possession of an individual's property. Warrantless seizures of property are mostly prohibited, unless there are justifiable expectations. The Wall Street Journal stated, "you can’t have a hundred percent security and then have a hundred

The search and seizure stipulate that the Fourth Amendment is about privacy. It gives a prevision of protection of personal privacy to every citizen’s right, not to serve as a fixed protection against the misuse of the government, but to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into individuals lives. There is an understanding that one must know when looking into the Fourth Amendment and expecting protection, that must be considered. It serves as a protection for the rights of the people during police stops, arrests, searches and seizures of homes, papers and businesses. It has been placed to be a legal mechanical device to ensure that people’s rights are treated fairly under limited circumstances from those who are in a legal position. The Fourth Amendment stretches out to demonstrate the protection of search and seizure. This constitutional protection is provided to individuals in many scenarios. When police have a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant or the belief that probable cause in which a crime has been committed it shows that law enforcement has validation or at least a solid belief of probable cause during a search or seizure, but just so you understand the police can override your privacy, your concerns and conduct a search of you and your personal space. Law is a concrete form of rules that has been placed in a foundation that was established for policy holders to refer back to encase there is a need for an exclusionary rule (Nd 2014). During my

The first amendment I will explain is the procedural rights for the Fourth Amendment (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The fourth amendment protects a person and their personal effects from unreasonable search and seizure. Unless there is probable cause for the warrant. A search is when law enforcement is inspecting or exploring person or their property to discover evidence of a crime or are accused of a crime. Seizures are when someone commits a crime and their property is taken into custody when there is a violation of a crime. A person is considered seized when they cannot freely leave such as when there are several officers, a display of a weapon, some form of physical touching, or tone of the officer’s voice. There are two types of search and seizures, the first is made with a warrant it is a written order

We are further protected by the “exclusionary rule,” which throws out any evidence that was collected under violation of the Fourth Amendment. This rule highly discourages authorities from going outside of their means to collect evidence. The downside to this rule is that it tends to let guilty defendants go free if their evidence was found in ways that violated the Fourth

In criminal justice the exclusionary rule prohibits the use of illegally seized evidence or evidence that violates the offenders rights under the fourth, fifth, or sixth amendment. There are three exceptions under the exclusionary rule, “fruit of the poisoned tree”, inevitable discovery exception, and the good faith exception. These three exceptions each allow evidence that can be considered illegally obtained to be admissible in a court of law, given it fits in certain constraints. “Fruit of the poisoned tree” is a term for any verbal or physical evidence obtained by using illegally obtained evidence.

The Fourth Amendment is a persons right to privacy and protects them from an unlawful search and seizure. When an officer conducts an unlawful search and illegally collects evidence, the officer might try to present the evidence in the suspects trial.As a result of unreasonable search and seizure, the exclusionary rule was created. The exclusionary rule states that any criminal evidence collected by law enforcement officials in violation of a persons fourth amendments rights is inadmissible in court (Schmalleger, 128). However, the exclusionary rule was established to ensure that police officers abide by the rules and obtain warrants that permit them to effectively conduct a search and arrests, especially if the arrest made may lead to the

The exclusionary rules was established in 1914, the Weeks v United State and was made applicable to federal prosecution, in the federal prosecution in the fourth amendment barred the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure. In 1961, the exclusionary rule was made applicable to the states through Mapp v Ohio; in this case, “We hold

The exclusionary rule was created by the court as a remedy and deterrent, it was not meant to be a constitutional right. Its purpose was "to deter law enforcement officers from conducting searches or seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment and provide remedies to defendants whose rights were infringed upon" (Exclusionary Rule). This encouraged many individuals to become opponents of the rule.

Weeks v. United States was the landmark case that established the judge-made law embodied in the exclusionary rule . In this case, federal authorities had searched a man’s home using a key that they had found by speaking with a neighbor. While there, they seized various documents, doing so without a warrant. Based upon those documents, they were able to

The Fourth Amendment stops the government from conducting unreasonable search and seizures. Law enforcement can conduct a search if they have probable cause without the courts approval. There are times when the law enforcement must go to the courts to get a search warrant before the can search and seize.