The Issue Of Administrative Searches

Would you want to have Federal agents come into your home and begin searching your possessions? Is exposing what you have inside your home, either personal belongings or simple everyday items to someone whom you do not know uncomfortable? In which situations should these searches occur without a warrant and do they violate the Fourth Amendment? There are many questions similar to these being debated at national level. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the government cannot search you, your home, or your belongings without a good reason. Nor can the government seize your belongings without a good reason. An important test case of the Fourth Amendment was the case of DLK. In the case of DLK, did the federal government go too far in using its power of search and seizure? There are three main reasons why the government did go too far in DLK’s case: there was no warrant to prove the agents could use the thermal imager and scan DLK’s property, it violated his right of privacy in his home, and the thermal imager used to scan his property may not be 100% accurate, and that since this device scans objects/property, it may be considered a search. But in this case there was no warrant once again to show as evidence that the Federal agents had permission to use the thermal imager.

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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments

The Fourth Amendment provides citizen the freedom of privacy. The expectation of privacy is covered under the Fourth Amendment in order to protect this privacy. I strongly believe that an officer should obtain a search warrant in order to violate one's right to privacy when crossing the boundary of personal items. By searching an individual backpack, purse or wallet, one's privacy is invaded. According to the court in People v. Cregan personal items such as cigarette packs (found in pockets), wallets, or purses may be searched due to these items being inaccessibility of the individual at the time of an arrest. This ruling allows officers to violate one's privacy by searching these items; even though, the items are personal to the individual.

My paper is going to be focused on the Fourth Amendment, which sets the baseline for searches and seizures. I will present what the Fourth Amendment is, what the rights of the individual are as stated in the Fourth Amendment, what limitations may be held within the Fourth Amendment, what must be included within the warrant, and more. I decided to write on this topic as I believe that it is important for us as citizens to know what our rights are, and not just rely on what we think we know about the Constitution. A country which is educated about the rights which they have, and utilizes these rights in the correct instances is a country which is governed by laws, and

47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652 (1995). “Reasonableness” is “measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39(1996), and “whether a particular search meets the reasonableness standard ‘ “is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual 's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Vernonia School Dist. 47J, at pp. 652–653.

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

Many citizens know their rights. There have been cases where people’s rights have been violated in law enforcement.The Fourth Amendment of the 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.” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution) This amendment protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures, depending on the situation, and requires probable cause and a warrant in order for a

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America in simple terms protects Americans from irrational searches and seizures made by government officials in situations where one would expect a certain degree of privacy. Except if the official suspects probable cause, in which case they can, legally search you or they could obtain a search warrant from a judge that allows a police officer to search for specific items at a particular place and time. However, most government officials allow their biased views and racist thoughts to penetrate into their work and make them the gears social injustice. In recent news most of the social

While how it is utilized has changed from what the founding father’s intended, but the principles remain the same. It seeks to balance the interests of the government with the rights of the people to be free from unreasonable governmental interference. For over 200 years the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment have been construed in the context of physical searches; modern technology has introduced video monitoring equipment, infrared, quick digital record searches and police are beginning to rely more on virtual searches that do not require physical access to persons, houses, papers, and effects. The Supreme Court has not only failed to anticipate and recognize these changes, but continues to ignore it in all except narrow

The 4th Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. This not only protects out of the blue searches for no reason, but invasion of privacy. This keeps authority figures from searching like, maybe a car trunk. This also makes it to where they need a valid reason and a search warrant. They can’t just walk through someone’s doors and begin searching with no reason,

Within the criminal justice system there are warrant, and warrantless searches. Each are entitled to be covered by the 4th amendment, to protect a citizens rights. With the patriot act, it has made it easier for warrantless searches to be done, and by only needing probable cause. Police officers can have the mere suspicion, which is efficient enough to negatively influence what the legal standard means. When issuing a warrant, there is room for error. When this happens, and an officer follows through with the warrant it is still possible to be admissible in court. According to Funk and Wagnall’s (2016) under the 4th amendment of the constitution a search warrant can be issued under the oath of a complainant that is showing probable cause for its issuance (pg. 1). This is where searches that have probable must list specifics on the warrant, on what the police officers are looking for.

Law enforcement personnel are delegated through the authority to serve and protect, make arrests, conduct investigations, perform searches and seizure of persons and their belongings, and occasionally, their line of duty depending on the situation, use lethal weapons. But this authority entrusted to law enforcement personnel must be exercised within the limitations of law, or it might jeopardize the admissibility of any evidence collected for prosecution. That brings us the Fourth Amendment formed in 1971. Which states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. No Warrants shall be issued, but upon Probable Cause, supported by Oath

“The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, 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” (Greenwald, 3).

Two court cases are examined for this paper that are somewhat similar. The first case was precedent setting and the second seemed to follow some of the same ground as the first. The two cases, Aetna v. Pendleton Detectives and Patterson v. TLW and Turtle Creek, are presented below.

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 (U.S. Const. amend. IV).