Search and Seizure, Fourth Amendment Protections

Search and Seizure, Fourth Amendment Protections

Introduction

Search and seizure is a concept that lets law enforcement pursue criminals in an ongoing exercise, and is used to present evidence for persecution of criminals in possession of or trafficking narcotics. According to the fourth amendment, police may have power to search the premises of alleged criminals as well as seize offending materials or the criminal themselves. However, individuals are protected against arbitrary arrest and police intrusions under the same amendment, and may call for freedom from unauthorized police searches. In this case, a search warrant is necessary to justify the search. Under the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to defend themselves, their homes, personal effects or papers against unwarranted searches, and no warrants must be issued under Probable Cause.

Discussion

As the Fourth Amendment has given protection to people against unwarranted searches and seizures by government forces, the U.S Supreme Court must then determine the application of Fourth Amendment in other contexts to balance the interest of society as a whole and investigation of crime and individuals, while maintaining their right to privacy against government intrusion. Application of the Fourth Amendment cannot be justified on activities by particular persons whether they can be justified or not, however it may not be the case if the private person is a acting on behalf of government officials or within the knowledge of authorities. Government officials often refer to the Katz case, which had a particular impact on the rights of an individual's privacy and the government's imposition on it under the Fourth Amendment, and sparked debates that thoroughly described the extent to which reasonable respect of privacy and rights can be expected by civilians under said Amendment. In this particular case, while the individual used telephone services to apply gambling services, the defense authority claimed the right to uphold privacy that had been breached by the FBI. However, the FBI insisted that they hadn't physically infiltrated the phone booth through which Katz placed calls, hence were within their rights as applicants of the Fourth Amendment. The case raised debates over whether privacy of individuals is only protected under their own roofs and whatever they expose to the public, whether t be knowingly or unknowingly, may be used in the court of law. Another way that the Fourth Amendment is interpreted and addressed by the court of law is through record keeping of various instruments that may be used privately, such as telephone records, motor vehicle documents, emails or faxes etc.

Police force do no need to justify questioning of any person on the street as it is a public place, however individuals have the right to refuse giving out answers or information. In the case of warrants issued against persons or placed, since the officer has Probable Cause or reasonable suspicion they may search for criminal activity without intrusion of privacy laws. Probable Cause suggests that the police officer has enough justifiable facts and reasons to garner suspicious of criminal activity in a ...