The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, in large part, aimed to protect the privacy of individuals. One in particular, the Fourth Amendment safeguards people from the government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures to include of their person, dwelling, and property. “Probable cause” must be articulated and agreed to by a magistrate for a search warrant to be issued and executed. However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement for the government to execute search and seizure lawfully. The six major exceptions are Search Incident to Lawful Arrest; Plain View Exception; Consent; Stop and Frisk; Automobile Exception; Emergencies/Hot Pursuit (National Paralegal College, 2003-2007). These exceptions deal primarily
• The Court has have recognized special situations in which warrants were not required, including: border searches; consent searches; container searches; exigent circumstances; searches incident to a lawful arrest; plain view; special needs; stop and frisk; and inventory searches.
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.
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).
“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” (www.law.cornell.edu).
The fourth amendment is a person right to their privacy with the things that they possess. These precedent rights insure the security of our freedom unto a certain extent. This means that a governmental intrusion can take place, allowing a person property to be searched or seized. Depending on the circumstances, officials may or may not have to have a warrant if the evidence is reasonable. “The procedural rights in the fourth amendment influence the operation of criminal justice in the United States nearly every day” (Bohm & Haley, 2011, p.105). For Instance, officials do not have to have a warrant if they have probable cause and needs to preserve the evidence. In addition, a warrant is issued only if the search will end up being connected to the case or if officials think the object is in the home. These conclusions will help the evidence that officials have claimed with probable cause.
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.
The Fourth Amendment under the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 353 (1967). The general rule under the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant to be obtained before a search. Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2482 (2014). However, a search without a warrant may be reasonable if it falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. Id. at 2482.
Citizens are protected by two constitutional amendments, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises (including a vehicle), and any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable.
“Unreasonable search 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.” – Amendment IV
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 Fourth Amendment 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, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was ratified in 1791 and is an important amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment is “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” (Charles Wetterer). The issue of searching and seizing first originated in Britain in the mid-1700’s where British officers had general warrants to search citizens. While this became an issue for citizens in Britain, it became apparent also in the colonies where British soldiers were searching with only general warrants. Many citizens believed it was an invasion of privacy. So after independence from Britain, and the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was produced. George Mason, an important political figure in Virginia, had written the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and he and other delegates believed the primary purpose of the government was to protect the rights of its citizens. To further that, he believed citizens had the right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures. Once the idea of the Bill of Rights came into play, the Fourth Amendment was also created. The Fourth Amendment actually guarantees two things: You cannot search or seize unless you have a warrant and a
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 right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is associated with two types of warrants:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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.