The Fourth Amendment: Protection From Unreasonable Search And Seizure

By Author: Nick
Total Articles: 30
Comment this article

Here’s everything you need to know about Unreasonable Search and Seizure. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution safeguards the citizens against Unreasonable Search and Seizure.

The advancement of technology and information has increased the interaction between citizens and law enforcement.

The increased interaction has resulted in misconceptions and additional scrutiny regarding the rights of citizens when encountered by law enforcement. Hence to clear the misconceptions, this article covers the basic rights afforded to citizens by the Fourth Amendment.

Unreasonable Search and Seizure Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the citizens of America from Unreasonable Search and Seizure by the United States government. The Fourth Amendment also outlines when searches and seizures are known to be reasonable and when the law permits them.

So, in simple terms, the law protects your rights to be free from unreasonable search or seizure.

The U.S. government has spent hundreds of years interpreting and developing the Fourth Amendment.

The amendment ...
... states -

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure, 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 great deal of law gets discussed in the single sentence of the Fourth Amendment. The sentences address the extent of personal privacy, searches of person and property, police observations, detentions, arrests, police mindsets, the validity of warrants, and more.

The amendment discusses privacy on a larger scale. The recent amendment application determines whether the company- Apple can defy the government when asked to release customer’s text messages.

Search and Seizure Definition

In criminal law, search and seizure describe a law enforcement agent examining a person’s vehicle, business, and home to find evidence for the crime committed.

As a part of the search, the law enforcement officers go through part or all of a person’s property while looking for a specific item; it can be evidence related to a crime that the officers have reasons to believe the crime committed.

Any search of a person or their property and any seizure of tangible evidence of the person should be reasonable as per the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The law enforcement officers typically have to obtain the search warrant from the judge first. The warrant should specify whom the officers may search and what they may seize. However, a law enforcement officer may search and seize the property of an individual in emergency circumstances.

History of Search and Seizure

In the ongoing pursuit of criminal cases, search and seizure is a necessary exercise. It gets used to produce evidence essential for the prosecution of the alleged criminal.

The police officials have the power to search and seize. However, the citizens get protected against Arbitrary and unreasonable police intrusions as per the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

At that time, a customs official was free to enter any colonist’s home at will to search for violations of trade laws and customs. Many searches were conducted without justification and were unlimited in scope under England’s rule. It was customary to witness suspicionless searches against outspoken political activists.

To stop such acts and guard against arbitrary police intrusions, the newly formed U.S. in 1791 ratified the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Search and Seizures Law

The law enforcement officers are entrusted with the power as per search and seizures law to perform searches and seizures of an individual’s belongings, conduct investigations, make arrests and use lethal force when required in the line of duty.

The power entrusted to law enforcement officers must get exercised within the boundary of law. The Constitution and the case law interpreting it establishes such boundaries. The police officers jeopardize the admissibility of any evidence collected for prosecution when they exceed the limits of search and seizures law—the Fourth Amendment.

The safeguard enumerated by the amendment applies only against State Action. The term State Action refers to the action taken by a government official or at the orders or direction of a government official. Thus, actions taken by an official or private person working with law enforcement officials or actions taken by state or federal law enforcement will be subject to the Fourth Amendment strictures.

It is important to note that activities related to snooping, such as wiretapping or bugging performed by purely private citizens, do not receive Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

Your Rights to be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Individuals won’t get Fourth Amendment protection if they fail to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or seized by law enforcement officials. The United States Supreme Court explained that what “an individual knowingly exposes to the public, even in their office or home, is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection.

Constitutional protection of an individual’s property or belongings is possible if the property or belonging gets preserved as private, even in the public access area. It got determined in “Katz v United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed 2d 576 (1976).

The court has typically said that individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in their bodies, homes, personal properties, and business offices. As per the court, an individual also enjoys a qualified expectation of privacy in his or her automobiles.
Ordinarily, no reasonable expectation of privacy gets possessed by individuals in things like:
bank records, vehicle painting, handwriting, vehicle location, land visible from a public place, garbage left at roadside for collection, the smell of luggage and other things and places that are visible in open or plain view

Houseguests do not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy; especially when they do not stay overnight in the homes, they are visiting. Their sole purpose of visiting the house is to participate in criminal activities like drug transactions. It got determined in Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1998).

Similarly, a defendant has not shown an expectation of privacy in the car or the car’s content by showing that he or she was only a passenger in the searched car. It got determined in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978).

Before the court, both the vehicle passenger and the houseguest have to assert a property or possessory interest in the vehicle or home. Once interest gets asserted, the Fourth Amendment privacy interest will get considered. The same would prevent a police officer from illegal search and seizure of the defendant’s property or the person in question without obtaining a warrant first.

Click here to read more about the search and seizure constitution on getlegal.com.

Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause

The Fourth Amendment’s protections take hold once the individual establishes that he or she possesses an equitable privacy expectation in the place or property to be searched or seized.

The police officers require no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions. Similarly, individuals who get questioned have the right to refuse to answer any or all questions and go about their business. A police official only has the right to search or investigate people and places when the officials have reasonable suspicion and cause to suspect criminal activity.

The term “Probable Cause” means that the police officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe the commitment of the crime. In some cases, to conduct a limited search, the police officer may only need reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

The term “Reasonable Suspicion” means that the police officer possesses sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is about to happen or at hand. The level of expertise in reasonable suspicion is less when compared to probable cause, so to justify a brief frisk at a traffic stop at the roadside or in a public area, reasonable doubt usually gets used.

The officer should cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion and possess reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Items concerning the doubted criminal activity found in a search by the police officer may be taken or seized.

Arrest and Miranda

A seizure refers to collecting evidence under the Fourth Amendment by law enforcement officials and arresting persons. An arrest takes place when police take a person against their will for questioning or criminal prosecution.

The police must have an arrest warrant to make an arrest. However, the officer may make a warrantless arrest if an officer has probable cause to believe that a crime is getting committed or got committed, and there is no time to obtain a warrant. Additionally, an officer can arrest without a warrant if the crime gets executed in the officer’s presence.

Generally, an invalid arrest is not a defense to prosecution. However, if an individual gets arrested without probable cause, the evidence obtained in such a case may get excluded from the trial.

The arresting officer will have to read the Miranda warnings to the arrestee when made an arrest.

The Miranda warnings read the arrestees right to obtain counsel to represent the arrestee and to remain silent. The statements by the arrestee after the arrest may exclude from the trial if the Miranda warnings are not read to the arrestee by the officer when taken into custody.

Click here to know more about Arrest and Miranda and Unreasonable Search and Seizures.

Exceptions to the General Rule

While a search and seizure gets treated as an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, courts have developed a few exceptions to the unlawful search and seizure rule over time.

In the below-mentioned scenarios, arrest, search, and seizure are not considered unreasonable search and seizure by the law, and they do not require a warrant. Some of the most common circumstances where the warrant is not required include:
Automobile Exception

A police officer must have justified cause before searching anyone or any vehicle within the purview of the automobile exception. The possible reason that makes the unreasonable search and seizure reasonable can arise after a traffic stop. However, the cause should occur before any kind of search.

The police officer can search the entire car or any other vehicle if they have probable cause before doing so. It means that the officer can search the interior, exterior, trunk, or any luggage carried in the vehicle so long as the luggage may contain the item that the officers believe has probable cause to be searching for.
Consent

An unreasonable search and seizure are not treated reasonably if the officers have the consent of the person. The consent is valid if voluntarily given. Additionally, suppose multiple people have the authority to provide consent to search a particular property. In that case, anyone among them can provide the rights to the officer for a warrantless search.

On the other hand, if all people that have the power to give consent are present and even one of them denies the warrantless search, then that person’s refusal or denial overrides the other’s consent.
Search Incident to Arrest

A police officer can search an individual following a lawful arrest, with some limitations. Firstly, the arrest must be legal; if the arrest is illegal, the search incident to that arrest automatically becomes unlawful. Secondly, the search and arrest must take place at the same time and place.

For example, a police officer cannot arrest someone in California, transport the person to Indianapolis, and search the person once they get to Indianapolis. A police officer also has the limitation of searching an individual and the area within the individual’s wingspan when searching for an incident to arrest.

Remedy for Fourth Amendment Violations: Unreasonable Search and Seizure

The laws to reasonable suspicion and probable cause would not get followed at the contact point between citizens and law enforcement. Suppose the law enforcement officers overstep the search and seizure laws rights of a citizen. In that case, it is not advised to the citizen to rectify or attempt to rectify the situation at the violation time.

The proper remedy when the rights get violated is called the exclusionary rule. The rule states that any evidence found as the result of the violation or as a means of unreasonable search and seizure cannot be used as evidence to prosecute the citizen for the alleged crime. However, the exclusion does not happen automatically.

The citizen and the citizen’s attorney must alert the court that the evidence should get excluded for exclusion to happen. Any evidence found in the exception to the rule of unreasonable search and seizure may still be used against the citizen and could get used in a court of law.
To Conclude -

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the citizens from Unreasonable Search and Seizure by law enforcement officers.

The amendment does not mean that the citizens are free from search and seizure; they just get protected against unreasonable search and seizure. As per the amendment, police officers need a warrant to search and seize; however, with few exceptions to the rule, the officers get the right to search and seize without any warrants
https://www.getlegal.com/legal-info-center/criminal-law/search-and-seizure/