Should The Private Sector Be Allowed To Protect By Private Property?

539 Words3 Pages

The U.S. Constitution allows for freedom from unreasonable search and seizure by public sector officials. This is stated in the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The public sector cannot search personal belongings without probable cause, or in most situations a warrant. Vile cites (Vile,J,2010, A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments,p.141)," The Fourth Amendment thus begins by specifying that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated." Thus, evidence gathered without probable cause can't be used against a person. This concept is called The Exclusionary Rule. The courts have applied this rule to denying evidence attained illegally, as stated, (Vile,2010,p.144)," It prohibited prosecutors from introducing evidence at trials that …show more content…

In this case, seized property was done so by the private sector. The private sector is not bound by constitutional restrictions. Nemeth states (Nemeth,C,2012, Private Security and The Law,p.72)," The Supreme Court held unequivocally that Fourth Amendment protection was not available to litigants and claimants arrested, searched, or seized by private parties." The private sector receives its authority through statutory and common law. According to (Nemeth,2012,p.73)," Because private police do not derive their authority from a constitutional framework, the foundation of the arrest action rests in common and statutory law - those codifications that simultaneously give the power of arrest to a private person."

In my opinion, the People vs. Zelinski case makes the most sense in overturning the Burdeau decision. The case

Open Document