Want this question answered?
if there is belief of illegal activities
search and seizure without warrant
The Fourth Amendment. -Apex
They already have a warrant for the arrest of a person so they do not need another one to entire the residence of the named person. However, they do need a search and seizure warrant to search the premises for anything or anyone not included in the "outstanding" warrant.
Weapons.
Warden v. Hayden
The first landmark case on search and seizure is generally considered to be Boyd v. United States (1886). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to private papers and documents and that the government cannot compel individuals to produce them without a valid search warrant. This ruling established a significant precedent for protecting privacy rights in search and seizure cases.
To obtain a search warrant an officer must go before a judge and explain the reason for the search. The warrant will list the reason or reasons why they are searching, what they are looking for, and why. please refer to this link for more information, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant
Yes, it is true that the US Supreme Court has consistently expressed a strong preference for the use of search warrants. This preference is based on the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court has held that a warrant is generally required for searches and seizures, except for certain exceptions recognized by the Court.
a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment
If any evidence is acquired without a proper warrant for search and seizure, the evidence must be thrown out before court and the jury cannot use the evidence against the accused in a court case.
Question is unclear and is obvously missing information. Please re-word and re-submit.