The warrants must be specific describing where will be searched and what or who will be apprehended. Probable cause and or evidence must be present to obtain a warrant. Finally when obtaining a warrant officers must swear an oath. The 4th Amendment does not describe when warrants are needed. The Supreme Court has concluded warrants are not always necessary because of the practicalities of police work.
In order to get such approval, the officer must have probable cause and swear they believe a crime is being committed. However, if the judiciary is not present, officers were able to conduct a warrantless search. This changed in 1914, when the Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule. This rule states that evidence obtained unconstitutionally is excluded in court and cannot be used as part of the case. The Fourth Amendment goes hand in hand with the Fourteenth Amendment which states that no state, “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.
However, the Fourth Amendment is not an assurance against all search and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable by the law. According to the Legal Information institute an unreasonable search is any search conducted by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and/or “without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present.” () If any evidence is found during an illegal search and seizure then the evidence is
There are 2 exceptions to this law. First, in the 1984 Nix V Williams case the Supreme Court ruled if the police would have found the evidence anyway. Second, if the police believe they are acting in good faith, even though the warrant they have is fraudulent. This was declared in the 1989 USA V Lean
Depending on the context, search warrants are a controversy for example; when entering a residence with the correct procedures that the law enforcement officer makes. To get a warrant, officers need consent and signed paper from the judge and with the state attorney. Overall there is the fourth amendment that safeguards the protection of the people and the right to issue a warrant with probable cause. In nature, there are certain requirements of a search warrant and some denies that right to search freely.
The general rule is that searches must be conducted in accordance with the law. As a matter of fact, most searched done by law enforcement officers are done without a warrant, also known as “warrantless searches”. It is best to error on the side of caution when applying real world correlations dealing with electronics. If law enforcement officers believe they have a legitimate exception for a search, it is best to obtain a warrant. However, law enforcement officers may need to seize the evidence in question so that the evidence cannot be destroyed or altered.
Searches have generally always required warrants, but over time the Court created exceptions. These exceptions have broken down the broad distinction created that was originally created by “reasonableness.” Two categorical exceptions were created by essentially balancing public and private interests: “special needs” and “totality of the circumstances.” Special needs cases arise when there is some great public need other than ordinary criminal detection present.
One of these rights is to know why you have been arrested. In older England, when people did not agree with certain customs-like religion-false charges made by the English Monarch would be charged against that person and they would be punished. Most of the time they would never know why or what the charges were. According to The Virginia Bill of Rights it says,”... prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour…”
There are limits to their power. Throughout history, there have been several cases that helped shed light on the rules and regulations of searches and seizures. If I was given the opportunity to give a basic course to police officers about the legal boundaries of searches and seizures that is to guide them in their activity, I would inform them on the correct manner of handling a search and seizures to stop any unlawful behavior. In the first lesson of the course, I would inform the police officers to know the difference in between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned.
Several exceptions to the Fourth amendment have been made over the past several decades, with some being understandable and others being questionable. Consenting to a search results in not needing a warrant, though this poses many exceptions and complications, i.e. the scope of the consent given, whether consent is voluntarily specified, or whether a person has the right to consent to a search of another's property. Another understandable exception is the “plain view” doctrine, where an officer (acting in legal presence) can seize plain view objects. The stipulation to this is that the officer must have had probable clause that the objects seized are contraband. Exigent circumstances, where it would be harmful or impractical to obtain a warrant
But the court in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte used a different test for consent searches and it’s the voluntariness test or totality of the circumstances. In this test knowledge to refuse consent is a factor but it is not a requirement the main requirement is on police coercion, this means that the officer did not force Alcala to search the vehicle. In this case Officer Rand asked Alicia to search the vehicle and he said sure this shows that did not use police coercion, because he voluntarily answer and submitted. It would have been coercion if Alcala said “no” and then Rand started saying things like “you’ve got nothing to hide let me search the car”. So the consent was voluntary because Alcala was not coercion into allowing the search by Officer
In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).
The circumstances that are considered exigent vary, and courts have applied this exception to the fourth amendment to be applicable to an array of situations law enforcement has encountered. These situations include when someone may be harmed, evidence may be destroyed if law enforcement were to wait for a search warrant, or a suspect may escape. Several court cases have played a role in when and where law enforcement may use the exception of exigent circumstance to conduct a search without a warrant. United States v. Santana is the case that has made it legal for law enforcement to chase a person into a residence when they were in “hot pursuit” without a warrant.