Overview of Unreasonable Search and Seizure?

Answer 1

The fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees The right of the people... against unreasonable searches and seizures. To insure this, an officer must have a search warrant to perform a search. To avoid the abuse of warrants, no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, and it must also describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

Detention

Procedure for detention of people crossing the border is explained in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez. In this case, while a specific time limit was not placed on detention, the court ruled that the detention must be reasonable, according to the situation. With regards to criminal detention, a number has been placed on the amount of time that a suspected criminal can be detained. In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, the court ruled that detention for longer than forty eight hours without probable cause violates the constitution. This number was reached based on the amount of time it takes to complete the administrative steps surrounding an arrest

Fingerprinting

For an officer of the law to take the fingerprints of a free person, there must be a probable cause to believe that (1) the person actually committed a crime, and (2) taking the fingerprints will establish or negate the guilt of the person. This is according to Hayes v. Florida and Davis v. Mississippi. It is important to note that this only applies to a free person, because, in Smith v. U.S. and Napolitano v. U.S., it was ruled that taking fingerprints when booking a person or prior to bail is not a violation of constitutional rights.

Blood Testing

The drawing of blood from a free person generally requires a search warrant. See U.S. v. Chapel. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that blood testing is a minimally invasive procedure, and said, [It] would not be considered offensive by even the most delicate in Breithaupt v. Abram. This creates special circumstances in which a search warrant is not required.

Sobriety Checkpoints

In Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, the Supreme Court, relying on the well-settled fact that there are lessened privacy concerns over routine stops and visual inspections of vehicles on the nation's roadways, ruled that sobriety checkpoints where motorists are stopped and briefly questioned do not violate constitutional rights. Any more extensive testing, though, must have probable cause.