The Fourth Amendment To The Criminal Justice System

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

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).)

The purpose for the Fourth Amendment is to protect people from intrusion of the government in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It prohibits searches and seizures unless they are conducted with probable cause and under reasonable circumstances. “The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment” (Criminal.Findlaw.com, 2013).

In the case of Santiago v. State of New Mexico (Santiago v. State of New Mexico, 2009), security officers had responded to a fight and caught the defendant running out the front door of the Mall they were working at. The defendant was pinned to the ground and handcuffed. The security guards searched the defendant by reaching inside his pockets and removing several items, including a pill bottle containing four grams of cocaine. Shortly after, police showed up and the defendant, as well as the removed items, was turned over to police.

(Encarta Online) In the case Horton v. California 1990, police entered a house with a warrant that was given to search the house for stolen jewelry. While searching the house they found illegal weapons in plain view. The officers seized weapons as well as the stolen jewelry. In 1990 the court ruled in the case, Greenwood v. California, the court approved a search of garbage that was left on the curb without a warrant. One other situation that an officer can enter a home and seize evidence is if there is an emergency and it is vital for he or she to enter. (History Channel Online) In the case Michigan v. Tyler, 1978, there was evidence that two furniture

1. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

According to Encyclopedia Britannica the exclusionary rule, in American law, states that any evidence seized unlawfully by the police is in violation of the Fourth Amendment (The Editors of The Encyclopedia Britannica). The exclusionary rule was created to exclude any evidence obtained during an illegal search to be used in federal and state courts. The principal behind it is to protect the constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment that may be threatened by police misconduct. Also to secure

The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use

test, the exclusionary rule, and pertaining to Berger vs. New York, this case examined whether or not evidence obtained by eavesdropping could be used in court. So back to one of my previous thoughts that even if the founder fathers could not view the challenges that the future would bring their amendments, we as a people, through a number of different circumstances, have come up with new parts to apply to the amendments that keep them pertinent in our modern society. Also aside from the exclusionary rule which helps the citizens if evidence is illegally obtained that it cannot be used against them in court, but in the mid 1980s the good faith exception was first instituted. This was created to help the police force or any force in use of a warrant but held an error outside of their control. In short, this helped if the warrant held a mistake but it was not the policemen’s fault so even if evidence was obtained it can still be used in court even with a flawed warrant.

One of the many freedoms we enjoy, as Americans is the right that protects us from unreasonable search and seizures; as well as the necessity for a search warrant when law enforcement wishes to search someone’s property. This right is known as the Fourth Amendment and it contains two clauses: the first one is the reasonableness clause, which states that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The second part is the warrant clause, which states that a warrant must be issued upon the finding of probable cause. It must then be supported by an affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and what us intending to be found.

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 Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution applies to a person and their home by providing protection against unreasonable seizures and searches. While it provides protection, not every search and seizure can be deemed unreasonable unless it is classified as per the law, by determining whether there was: a) the level of intrusion of the individuals Fourth Amendment, and b) whether or not it pertains to the government’s interest, such as safety of the public.

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend IV. Absent a warrant, a search may be reasonable if officers obtain consent of a third party having actual common or apparent authority over the premises or items to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). Actual common authority over property hinges on the “mutual use . . . by parties generally having joint access or control.” Id. at 171 n.7. Should actual authority be absent, the search is still reasonable if officers reasonably believe, based on facts available, that the consenting party had authority over the premises. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 (1990).

Mapp was arrested for possessing obscene pictures, after police illegally obtained them. At the time Ohio had a statute that made the possession of obscene literature criminal. At Mapp’s trial no search warrant was admitted into evidence, however she was still convicted. The Court citing Wolf vs Colorado found that evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure is admissible in criminal prosecution. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Court. “unlawful searches and seizure” “right to privacy”

Fourth amendment states that the right of the people shall be secured in terms of their houses, offices, papers, and effects cannot be searched without any warrant. However, if any case demands warrant for search or there is a requirement for probable cause then it shall be issued. The warrant for searching a place so issued must mention the place to be searched, and for seizure purpose, things shall be mentioned in it. The search warrant shall be supported by oath or affirmation. The government give its people the benefit of violating nay search without search warrant. This provides safety to the people of the state, city and country.