LEGAL REVIEW

Illegal Searches and Seizures



Illegal Searches and Seizures

Illegal Searches and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Moreover, the amendment also states that a search warrant, which is a court order, must be based on probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation from the police officer or prosecutor. Nevertheless, police routinely search and seize property that is connected to criminal activity. A lawful search and seizure results in the introduction of evidence at trial. An unlawful search and seize, which is challenged by a defendant, will lead to the suppression of the evidence. This outcome, which is based on the exclusionary rule fashioned by the Supreme Court, seeks to deter police from using unconstitutional methods (Bulzomi, 1998). With its passage, states could no longer legally enforce laws like the black codes that stood in opposition to federal legislation. The existence of services is dependent upon policies and legislation which stipulate the provision of funding and resources for families raising a child with a disability. Family focused services means providing families with whatever it takes for families of people with disabilities to live as much like other families as possible.

The Fourth Amendment mandates that police have probable cause before they search a person or property. Probable cause is a vague standard. It exists when the facts and circumstances within a person's knowledge are sufficient to justify a reasonable person in believing that something is true. In the context of police work, an officer must have enough facts to support the conclusion that a crime has or will be committed. When the police have enough time to secure a search warrant, these facts must be presented in a written statement to a judge and the statement must be affirmed or sworn to by the law enforcement official. In addition, the application must list the items the police are looking for. The judge must be satisfied that probable cause exists before signing the search warrant (Barry, 2005).

An officer must confine the search to the places listed in the search warrant, such as a house, garage and an automobile. Though the warrant limits what can be seized, an exception is made for additional items that are in plain view. Wiretaps and the use of pen registers for surveillance purposes are also governed by the terms of search warrants.

Case Analysis

The Supreme Court has created exceptions to the probable cause requirement. In Terry v Ohio, 393 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the Court endorsed the “stop and frisk” procedure commonly used by police in public places. Police may briefly detain a person and conduct a pat down of the person's clothing to determine whether he or she is carrying a weapon. The Court concluded that police are entitled to use this procedure when they have a “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been or will be committed. Reasonable suspicion is something less than probable cause. If the defendant later challenges the stop and frisk, the officer ...