0
Search and Seizure
Search and seizure is the process in which law enforcement or other investigating agencies go through a person's property when a crime may have been committed. They confiscate anything that may serve as evidence towards the crime.
227 Questions
Police don't need a search warrant to seize evidence when?
Most people believe that the police need a warrant to collect anything anywhere. But as long as the police officer has proable cause or a suspect gives consent to get a possible piece of evidence; they can collect anything. Another case is when there is an obvious, severe action being done.
Otherwise, the police must always get a warrant from a judge to search or collect anything.
Why is the 4th amendment important?
The 4th Amendment ensures that the privacy of U.S. citizens is protected, except in the case that a warrant is given by an authority for a reasonable purpose. (In example, a warrant may be given to search a home if an authority has reason to believe that the owner or resident has committed a crime.)
What is fourth amendment problem?
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was agreed upon during America's Founding Period primarily due to the practical experience of Americans during British rule of their homes. Not only did British officials and/or troops enter American homes at will and violently; they also received permission to do so by way of a prejudiced process: British legal authorities granted such permissions in pursuit of the same objectives as those pursued by the officials and troops violating American homes. The Fourth Amendment sought to prevent such problems from arising in future.
What is the history of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution?
Back in the mid 1700s, the Writs of Assistance allowed royal officers to search the homes of citizens, mostly as a way of discovering violations of strict English laws. This practice led to a unique awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat to individual liberty and privacy that is created by unchecked government search powers. They decided to create an amendment that both gave the goevernment power to search criminals and also prevented the government from repeating English history (which was the point of coming to a new land and forming a new government, wasn't it).
How has the 4th amendment been abused over time?
the fourth amendment IS still used today, just not as much. nowadays no one can come to your house and search it, of a police man does that, you have the right to keep them out of the house and not allow them to enter.
Probably not. If the police are actively investigating a complaint (noise complaint) then they are likely within their rights to enter the premise where the violation is occurring.
Which Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures?
The Fourth Amendment protects from illegal searches and seizures. It requires law officials to have a warrant in order to conduct a search. It is part of the Bill of Rights and was adopted in 1792.
When was the fourth amendment made?
In the US constitution the first ten amendments were passed all at once as the Bill of Rights.
All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.
Tennessee v. Garner
What is the provision of the fourth amendment in the Bill of Rights?
The Fourth Amendment means that no one can search you, your home, or your personal property without a warrant, unless their reason is justified. (reasonable)
There are exceptions to the "personal" extent of the amendment, such as suspicious activity, commission of a crime, or making threats against others. Your home may be entered without a warrant only if circumstances lead the police to believe that someone is in imminent danger, or is becoming the victim of a violent crime.
Which amendment covers search and seizure issues?
That would be Amendment Four. It reads: 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. Amendment Five, well known for refusal to testify against ones self, touches slightly upon this, reading: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
A large number of cases fit this description, since the Supreme Court has taken an active role in defining the limits of Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. The following are a selection of 4th Amendment precedents:
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 (1990) upheld the use of sobriety traffic checkpoints; however, Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 US 32 (2001) held that this rule does not extend to checkpoints designed to search for drugs, because the search is too generalized. In Edmund, the search was confined to the use of drug-sniffing dogs (which is legal if the car is lawfully stopped) and outside visual check.
Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429 (1991) held that evidence obtained during random bus searches, if conduct with the passengers' consent (even if the passenger feels compelled by circumstances to agree), is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.
Florida v. Royer, 460 US 491 (1983) held that police cannot hold someone without probable cause, and any evidence found during the detention is obtained illegally and may not be used as evidence, even if the person appears to agree to the search.
Oliver v. United States, 466 US 170 (1984) held that open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, even if they are fenced and marked with no trespassing signs.
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 US 366 (1993) held that drugs detected by touch during a routine patdown can be used as evidence, but only if they were found in an area that might logically conceal a weapon.
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 US 33 (1996) held that a lawfully detained defendant does not need to be told explicitly that he or she is "free to go" before they can voluntarily agree to a search and seizure. Conviction on drug charges also upheld, despite defendant being stopped for another cause (speeding).
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 US 405 (2005) held that drug-sniffing dogs may be used during routine traffic stops (but not at checkpoints).
Bond v. United States, 529 US 334 (2000) held that a person has a legal expectation of privacy if their luggage is stored in a compartment (referring to a bus or other public transportation), and that any police manipulation of that luggage constitutes illegal search and seizure.
New York v. Belton, 453 US 454 (1981) held that police can search the passenger compartment of a stopped car and any containers found inside it as part of the valid arrest of any of the vehicle's occupants.
Pennsylvania v. LaBron, 518 US 938 (1993) held that police do not need to obtain a search warrant for a vehicle if the vehicle is capable of leaving the scene, even if there is time to obtain a search warrant.
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 US 295 (1999) held that police can search a passenger's belongings inside a car if they already have probable cause to search the car.
Thornton v. United States, 541 US 615 (2004) held that police may search the passenger compartment of a suspect's car, even if their first contact with the person occurs after he or she leaves the car.
California v. Acevedo, 500 US 565 (1991) held that police can conduct a warrantless search of a paper bag in the trunk of a car if they have probable cause to believe the bag contains drugs.
California v. Carney, 471 US 386 (1985) held that police can conduct a warrantless search of a motor home (RV) if they have probable cause.
United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 US 579 (1983) held that customs officials may conduct warrantless searches of boats pursuant to Title 19 USC §1581(a).
California v. Ciraolo, 476 US 207 (1986) held that police may take unaided aerial photographs of the area immediately surrounding a home using a private plane or helicopter as long as they are in public airspace.
Florida v. Riley, 488 US 445 (1989) held that police do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.
Arizona v. Gant, (slip opinion) (2008) held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest, and without a warrant, only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search, or if the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. (Compare with the decision in Belton; Gant narrows the exception).
Kyllo v. United States, 533 US 27 (2001) held that use of a thermal imaging device to detect grow lights being used inside a house for cultivating marijuana is a Fourth Amendment violation and requires a warrant.
Alabama v. White, 496 US 325 (1990) held that an anonymous tip as corroborated by independent investigation, is sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop.
Whren v. United States, 517 US 806 (1996) upheld the conviction on drug possession charges of two individuals who were pulled over because police became suspicious when they sat too long at a stoplight. Defendants claimed there was no probable cause to stop them. The Court ruled that the temporary detention of a motorist does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizure, "even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective."
Colorado v. Bertin, 479 US 367 (1987) held that contraband discovered in the process of inventorying an impounded car is lawful, and the items can be used as evidence in court.
Murray v. United States, 487 US 533 (1988) FDA agents observed suspicious activity occurring in and around a warehouse, with numerous vehicles driving into the warehouse and exiting a few minutes later. Two vehicles were stopped and the occupants were arrested for marijuana possession. After everyone left the warehouse, the DEA agents broke in, observed 270 bales of marijuana, then left to obtain a search warrant. They did not inform the magistrate of the break-in when requesting the warrant. The lower courts hed the warrant was invalid because the agents hadn't been forthcoming about entering the building prior to requesting the warrant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the Fourth Amendment does not preclude admission of evidence discovered in an illegal, warrantless search if the same evidence is discovered later using a warrant.
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 US 325 (1985) held that public school searches do not require warrants as long as there is reasonable cause tot suspect illegal activity of the presence of contraband.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 US 213 (1983) overturned the landmark decisions in Aguilar v. Texas, (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, (1969), and replaced the Aguilar-Spinelli Test that gives little weight to confidential informant or anonymous tips when granting search warrants with a "totality of the circumstances" test.
United States v. Leon, 468 US 497 (1984) Established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule that held evidence procured using defective warrants issued in error using insufficient probable clause could be used in court if the police had acted on the warrant in good faith (believed it was valid).
United States v. Santana, 427 US 38 (1976) held that a warrantless arrest inside the suspect's home was justified because the suspect was standing in a doorway when police approached. Since she was in full public view, she had no expectation of privacy. Retreating inside the house did not trigger Fourth Amendment protection because the arrest had been set in motion in a "public place."
Much of the case law permitting warrantless entry under exigent circumstances is determined by lower federal and state decisions, and is beyond the scope of discussion here, due to the level of expertise and detail involved in the explanation. The subject is discussed in detail in law enforcement training manuals.
How does the 4th amendment protect your privacy?
U.S. Const., Amend. IV:
"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."
Amendment IV forms the basis for the Exclusionary Rule, which, if validly applied, excludes inculpatory evidence from consideration as to the criminal responsibility and therefore criminal liability of a person or entity. That is, it functions to prohibit unlawful searches and seizures, including seizures of the person constituted by the arrest and detention of persons. In this context, the "right to privacy" is the "right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures"--and, of course, it is a very highly-qualified right.
What supreme court cases involve the fourth amendment?
Given the content and purpose of the Amendment, it would be something to do with an unreasonable search or seizure of property.
Amendment IV
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.
A search or seizure, The Fourth Amendment protects against a search or seizure
