Learn when police officers must obtain a warrant before they search your home or other property.
A search warrant is an order signed by a judge that authorizes police officers to search for specific objects or materials at a definite location at a specified time. For example, a warrant may authorize the search of "the premises at 11359 Happy Glade Avenue between the hours of 8 A.M. to 6 P.M.," and direct the police to search for and seize "cash, betting slips, record books and every other means used in connection with placing bets on horses."
Police officers obtain warrants by convincing a judge or magistrate that they have "probable cause" to believe that criminal activity is occurring at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime may be found there. Usually, the police provide the judge or magistrate with information in the form of written statements under oath, called "affidavits," which report either their own observations or those of private citizens or police undercover informants. In many areas, a judicial officer is available 24 hours a day to issue warrants. If the magistrate believes that the affidavit establishes probable cause to conduct a search, he or she will issue a warrant. The suspect, who may be connected with the place to be searched, is not present when the warrant issues and therefore cannot contest the issue of probable cause at that time. However, the suspect can later challenge the validity of the warrant before trial.
What Is Probable Cause?
The Fourth Amendment doesn't define "probable cause." Its meaning remains fuzzy. What is clear is that after 200 years of court interpretations, the affidavits submitted by police officers to judges have to identify objectively suspicious activities rather than simply recite the officer's subjective beliefs. The affidavits also have to establish more than a "suspicion" that criminal activity is afoot, but do not have to show "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
The information in the affidavit need not be in a form that would make it admissible at trial. However, the circumstances set forth in the affidavit as a whole should demonstrate the reliability of the information. In general, when deciding whether to issue a search warrant, a judicial officer will likely consider information in an affidavit reliable if it comes from any of these sources:
* a confidential police informant whose past reliability has been established or who has firsthand knowledge of illegal goings-on
* an informant who implicates herself as well as the suspect
* an informant whose information appears to be correct after at least partial verification by the police
* a victim of a crime related to the search
* a witness to the crime related to the search, or
* another police officer.
Sometimes the police provide mistaken information in the affidavit and the judge or magistrate issues a warrant under circumstances that, given the true state of affairs, would not justify a search under the Fourth Amendment. The question then arises as to whether the search itself is legal. In most situations the search will be upheld if the police acted in good faith when seeking the warrant (that is, they didn't know about the mistakes in the affidavit). The reasoning here is that:
* it makes no sense to condemn the results of a search when police officers have done everything reasonable to comply with Fourth Amendment requirements, and
* the purpose of the rule excluding the results of an invalid search as evidence is to curb the police, not a judge, and that if a judge makes a mistake it should not be grounds to exclude evidence.
What Police Can Search for and Seize Under a Warrant
The police can search only the place described in a warrant, and usually can seize only the property that the warrant describes. The police cannot search a house if the warrant specifies the backyard, nor can they search for weapons if the warrant specifies marijuana plants. However, this does not mean that police officers can seize only those items listed in the warrant. If, in the course of their search, police officers come across contraband or evidence of a crime that is not listed in the warrant, they can lawfully seize the unlisted items.
If the warrant specifies a certain person to be searched, the police can search only that person unless they have independent probable cause to search other persons who happen to be present at the scene of a search. However, if an officer has a reasonable suspicion that an onlooker is engaged in criminal activity, the officer can question the onlooker and, if necessary for the officer's safety, conduct a frisk for weapons.
Technically, a person may require the police to produce a warrant before admitting them into his or her home for a search. However, people sometimes run into trouble when they "stand on their rights" in this way. A warrant is not always legally necessary, and a police officer may have information of which a person is unaware that allows the officer to make a warrantless entry. If an officer announces an intention to enter without a warrant, a person should not risk injury or a separate charge of "interfering with a police officer." Rather, the person should stand aside, let the officer proceed and allow a court to decide later whether the officer's actions were proper. At the same time, the person should make it clear that he or she does not consent to the search.
When Search Warrants Aren't Required
Most searches occur without warrants being issued. Over the years, the courts have defined a number of situations in which a search warrant is not necessary, either because the search is per se reasonable under the circumstances or because, due to a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply at all.
Consent Searches
If the person in control of the premises to be searched freely and voluntarily agrees to the search, the search is valid and whatever the officers find is admissible in evidence. Police officers do not have to warn people that they have a right to refuse consent to a search. To constitute a valid consent to search, the consent must be given "freely and voluntarily." If a police officer wrangles a consent through trickery or coercion, the consent does not validate the search. Often, a defendant challenges a search on the ground that consent was not voluntary, only to have a police officer testify to a conflicting version of events that establishes a valid consent. In these conflict situations, judges tend to believe police officers unless defendants can support their claims through the testimony of other witnesses. Sometimes people who are intimidated by the police misinterpret the "request" to be a command and will allow the search. However, so long as an officer does not engage in threatening behavior -- such as placing their hand on a sidearm -- judges will not set aside otherwise genuine consents.
Many disputes about consent have to do with who has the right to consent. For example, do parents have a right to consent to a search of their children's rooms? As a general rule, an adult in rightful possession of a house or apartment usually has legal authority to consent to a search of the entire premises. But if there are two or more separate tenants in one dwelling, courts often rule that one tenant has no power to consent to a search of the areas exclusively controlled by the other tenants (for instance, their separate bedrooms). Similarly, a landlord is not considered to be in possession of an apartment leased to a tenant, and therefore lacks authority to consent to a search of leased premises. The same is true for hotel operators. On the other hand, an employer can validly consent to a search of company premises, which extends to an employee's work area, such as a desk and machinery, but not to clearly private areas such as an employee's clothes locker.
A tricky twist is that the consent in these types of cases will be considered valid if the police reasonably believe that the consenting person has the authority to consent, even if it turns out they don't.
The Plain View Doctrine
Police officers do not need a warrant to search and seize contraband or evidence that is "in plain view" if the officer is where he or she has a right to be when the evidence or contraband is first spotted. For instance, the police may search for and seize marijuana growing outdoors if they first spot the marijuana from an airplane or helicopter, since the marijuana is deemed to be in plain view. Similarly, if an officer walks by a car and spots evidence or contraband through the car window, the plain view doctrine applies and a search may be conducted without a warrant. The same rule would apply if an officer is in your home for other valid reasons and spots drugs on a table or cabinet.
Search Made in Connection With an Arrest
Police officers do not need a warrant to make a search "incident to an arrest." After an arrest, police officers have the right to protect themselves by searching for weapons and to protect the legal case against the suspect by searching for evidence that the suspect might try to destroy. Assuming that the officer has probable cause to make the arrest in the first place, a search of the person and the person's surroundings following the arrest is valid, and any evidence uncovered is admissible at trial.
To justify a search as incident to an arrest, a spatial relationship must exist between the arrest and the search. The general rule is that after arrest the police may search a defendant and the area within a defendant's immediate control. For example, an arresting officer may search not only a suspect's clothes, but also the suspect's wallet or purse. If an arrest takes place in a kitchen, the arresting officer can probably search the kitchen, but not the rest of the house. If an arrest takes place outside a house, the arresting officer cannot search the house at all. To conduct a search broader in scope than a defendant and the area within the defendant's immediate control, an officer would have to obtain a warrant. However, the police may make what's known as a "protective sweep" following an arrest. When making a protective sweep, police officers can walk through a residence and make a "cursory visual inspection" of places where an accomplice might be hiding. For example, police officers could look under beds and inside closets. To justify making a protective sweep, police officers must have a reasonable belief that a dangerous accomplice might be hiding inside a residence. If a sweep is lawful, the police can lawfully seize contraband or evidence of crime that is in plain view.
Searches of Cars and Their Occupants
Cars may be searched without a warrant whenever the car has been validly stopped and the police have probable cause to believe the car contains contraband or evidence. The reasons why no warrant is required for a car search are:
* cars are easily moved and may disappear while a warrant is being sought, and
* people driving cars do not have the same expectation of privacy in cars as they do in their homes.
If the police have probable cause to search the car, all compartments and packages that may contain the evidence or contraband being searched for are fair game.
While a police officer cannot search a car simply because the car was stopped for a traffic infraction -- since routine traffic stops are not arrests that would justify a "search incident to an arrest" -- the police can order the driver and any passengers out of the car for safety considerations, even though there is no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing other than the traffic infraction. The police also can "frisk" the occupants for weapons so long as they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the occupants are involved in criminal activity beyond the traffic violation and are reasonably concerned for their safety.
The police are sometimes accused of using technical traffic violations as a pretext for stopping the car for the real reason of conducting a further investigation that often includes a frisk and possible search of the vehicle. Whatever the police officer's motives, however, if the officer had a valid reason to stop the vehicle, even one like a broken rear taillight, the stop is legal. And, if the initial stop is valid, any lawful frisk, search or arrest that follows the stop is also valid.
The Emergency Exception
As a general rule, the police are authorized to make a warrantless search when the time it would take to get a warrant would jeopardize public safety or lead to the loss of important evidence. Here are some situations in which most judges would uphold a warrantless search:
* An officer checks an injured motorist for possible injuries following a collision and finds illegal drugs.
* Following a street drug arrest, an officer enters the house after the suspect shouts into the house, "Eddie, quick, flush our stash down the toilet." The officer arrests Eddie and seizes the stash.
* A police officer on routine patrol hears shouts and screams coming from a residence, rushes in and arrests a suspect for spousal abuse.
In these types of emergency situations, an officer's duty to protect people and preserve evidence outweighs the warrant requirement.
If a judge decides that an officer had time to obtain a search warrant without risking injury to people or the loss of evidence, the judge should refuse to allow into evidence whatever was seized in the course of the warrantless search. Judges always have the final word on whether police officers should have obtained warrants.
Other Searches That May be Made Without A Warrant
The police may search a person's trash put out for collection without a warrant on the ground that, since the trash has been put out in public, there is no longer a reasonable expectation of privacy and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply.
A backyard may also be searched without a warrant if members of the public can see into it from where they have a right to be. Again, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an area that is open to public view. Similarly, fields around a house in a rural area are subject to a warrantless search as long as the police didn't trespass to obtain the information leading to probable cause for the search.
School lockers are subject to warrantless searches as long the school officials have a reasonable basis for conducting the search.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-50CD91FC-B21D-4BE7-BA4818C8E29AC758.html
Friday, May 25, 2007
Your right to privacy when the police come knocking, pull you over, or stop you on the street.
Your right to privacy when the police come knocking, pull you over, or stop you on the street.
What's Below:
When is a police investigation considered a search?
How Private Is Your Property?
What is a search warrant?
What does it take to get a search warrant?
What are the police allowed to do after they obtain a search warrant?
Do the police always need a warrant to conduct a search?
Can my roommate-or my landlord-give the police permission to search my apartment?
When is a police investigation considered a search?
A police investigation is not a search unless it intrudes on a person's privacy. In other words, if a person did not have a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched, no "search" has occurred.
Courts ask two questions to determine whether a person had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:
* Did the person expect some degree of privacy?
* Is the person's expectation reasonable-that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects that no one will spy on her, and most people-including judges and juries-would consider that expectation to be reasonable. Therefore, if the police install a hidden video camera in a public restroom, the action is considered a search and must meet the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
On the other hand, if the police glance into a car and see a weapon on the front seat, it is not a search because it is unlikely that a person would think that the front seat of a car is a private place. And even if he did, society is not generally willing to extend the protections of privacy to the front seat of an automobile.
How Private Is Your Property?
Generally, if the police are able to view contraband or evidence on your property without actually entering it, they have not conducted a search. In other words, you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area that can legitimately be seen from outside your property. This means that the police can use what they have seen as the basis for getting a warrant to come in and take a closer look. Or, if the situation calls for prompt action (the need to stop a drug deal, for instance), they may enter without a warrant.
Law enforcement officers are allowed to take aerial photographs or come close enough to overhear your conversations-these actions are not considered searches. On the other hand, without a warrant or an exception to the rule requiring a warrant, officers are probably not allowed to use sophisticated equipment to discover what is on your property or to eavesdrop on your conversations. In general, if the investigation method is highly artificial and high-tech, it's likely to be considered a search. Where the line is drawn, however, is not clear or consistent from state to state.
What is a search warrant?
A search warrant is a kind of permission slip, signed by a judge, that allows the police to enter private property to look for particular items. It is addressed to the owner of the property, and tells the owner that a judge has decided that it is reasonably likely that certain contraband, or evidence of criminal activities, will be found in specified locations on the property.
As a general rule, the police are supposed to apply for a warrant before conducting a search of private property; any search that is conducted without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable. This means that the police officers will later have to justify the search-and why a warrant wasn't obtained first-if the defendant challenges it in court.
What does it take to get a search warrant?
A judge will issue a search warrant after the police have convinced her that:
* it is more likely than not that a crime has taken place, and
* items connected to the crime are likely be found in a specified location on the property.
To convince the judge of these facts, the police tell the judge what they know about the situation. Usually, the information given to the judge is based either on the officers' own observations or on the second-hand observations of an informant.The police are limited in their ability to use secondhand information. As a general rule, the information must be reliable given the circumstances. Generally, reliable information is corroborated by police observation. For example, a citizen's tip that someone regularly delivers drugs to a certain location would be corroborated if an officer observes the person's routine. But corroboration is not necessary in every case. Sometimes a judge will issue a warrant if the source of the information is known to the police and has provided trustworthy information in the past.
What are the police allowed to do after they obtain a search warrant?
Once the police have a search warrant, they are entitled to enter the designated property to search for the items listed on the warrant. Legally, the search is supposed to be confined to the specific areas described in the warrant. For example, if the search warrant includes only the living room, the search should not extend into the kitchen, bathroom or bedroom. But there are exceptions to this limitation which are frequently used to justify broader searches. For example, the police may search beyond the terms of the warrant in order to:
* ensure their safety and the safety of others
* prevent the destruction of evidence
* discover more about possible evidence or contraband that is in plain view elsewhere on the property, or
* hunt for evidence or contraband that, as a result of their initial search, they believe exists in another location on the property.
For instance, although a warrant might be issued for the search of a house, the sound of a shotgun being loaded in the backyard would justify expanding the search to the yard in order to protect the officers; similarly, a search limited to the ground floor might legitimately expand to the upstairs if the police, searching for illegal drugs, hear toilets being flushed above. And the police can always seize evidence or illegal items if they are in plain view or are discovered while the officers are searching for the items listed in the warrant.
Do the police always need a warrant to conduct a search?
No. In many situations, police may legally conduct a search without first obtaining a warrant.
* Consent searches. If the police ask your permission to search your home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you agree, the search is considered consensual, and they don't need a warrant. The police typically obtain a person's consent by threatening to detain her while they obtain the warrant.
* Searches that accompany an arrest. When a person is placed under arrest, the police may search the person and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm the officer. If the person is taken to jail, the police may search to make sure that weapons or contraband are not brought into the jail. (This is called an inventory search.) Inventory searches also frequently involve a search of the arrested person's car (if it is being held by the police) and personal effects on the theory that the police need a precise record of the person's property to avoid claims of theft.
* Searches necessary to protect the safety of the public. The police don't need a warrant if they have a reasonable fear that their safety, or that of the public, is in imminent danger. For example, an officer who suspected a bomb-making operation while walking his beat might be justified in entering immediately and seizing the ingredients. And in the famous O.J. Simpson case, the police justified their entry onto O.J. Simpson's property on the grounds that they feared for the safety of other family members.
* Searches necessary to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. A police officer does not need to obtain a warrant if she has observed illegal items (such as weapons or contraband) and believes that the items will disappear unless the officer takes prompt action. This exception arises most frequently when the police spot contraband or weapons in a car. Because cars are moved so frequently, the officer is justified in searching the entire vehicle, including the trunk, without obtaining a warrant. On the other hand, if the police learn about a marijuana-growing operation from a neighbor, they usually would need a warrant, as it is unlikely that the growing plants and other evidence of the operation will disappear quickly enough to justify a warrantless search.
* "Hot pursuit" searches. Police may enter private dwellings to search for criminals who are fleeing the scene of a crime.
Back to top
Can my roommate-or my landlord-give the police permission to search my apartment?
The police may search your apartment if the person in charge of the premises gives permission. If you and your roommate share common areas (such as the kitchen and living room), your roommate can authorize a search of those areas. But your roommate cannot give permission to search your separate bedroom.
Similarly, your landlord cannot give permission to search your apartment. Although the landlord owns the property, your monthly check guarantees your privacy at home. This is true even if you are behind in your rent or your landlord has sued to evict you. Until the landlord has a court order that permits him to enter and retake the premises, he cannot enter without your permission. (But keep in mind that many states allow a landlord to enter for inspections, which usually require advance notice of a day or two.) If the police can point to circumstances that would justify immediate entry, however -- such as the sound of a ferocious fight or the smell of burning marijuana -- they may enter without permission from anyone.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-81B70BE7-806D-43EB-8632156E62570E6E.html
What's Below:
When is a police investigation considered a search?
How Private Is Your Property?
What is a search warrant?
What does it take to get a search warrant?
What are the police allowed to do after they obtain a search warrant?
Do the police always need a warrant to conduct a search?
Can my roommate-or my landlord-give the police permission to search my apartment?
When is a police investigation considered a search?
A police investigation is not a search unless it intrudes on a person's privacy. In other words, if a person did not have a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched, no "search" has occurred.
Courts ask two questions to determine whether a person had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:
* Did the person expect some degree of privacy?
* Is the person's expectation reasonable-that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects that no one will spy on her, and most people-including judges and juries-would consider that expectation to be reasonable. Therefore, if the police install a hidden video camera in a public restroom, the action is considered a search and must meet the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
On the other hand, if the police glance into a car and see a weapon on the front seat, it is not a search because it is unlikely that a person would think that the front seat of a car is a private place. And even if he did, society is not generally willing to extend the protections of privacy to the front seat of an automobile.
How Private Is Your Property?
Generally, if the police are able to view contraband or evidence on your property without actually entering it, they have not conducted a search. In other words, you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area that can legitimately be seen from outside your property. This means that the police can use what they have seen as the basis for getting a warrant to come in and take a closer look. Or, if the situation calls for prompt action (the need to stop a drug deal, for instance), they may enter without a warrant.
Law enforcement officers are allowed to take aerial photographs or come close enough to overhear your conversations-these actions are not considered searches. On the other hand, without a warrant or an exception to the rule requiring a warrant, officers are probably not allowed to use sophisticated equipment to discover what is on your property or to eavesdrop on your conversations. In general, if the investigation method is highly artificial and high-tech, it's likely to be considered a search. Where the line is drawn, however, is not clear or consistent from state to state.
What is a search warrant?
A search warrant is a kind of permission slip, signed by a judge, that allows the police to enter private property to look for particular items. It is addressed to the owner of the property, and tells the owner that a judge has decided that it is reasonably likely that certain contraband, or evidence of criminal activities, will be found in specified locations on the property.
As a general rule, the police are supposed to apply for a warrant before conducting a search of private property; any search that is conducted without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable. This means that the police officers will later have to justify the search-and why a warrant wasn't obtained first-if the defendant challenges it in court.
What does it take to get a search warrant?
A judge will issue a search warrant after the police have convinced her that:
* it is more likely than not that a crime has taken place, and
* items connected to the crime are likely be found in a specified location on the property.
To convince the judge of these facts, the police tell the judge what they know about the situation. Usually, the information given to the judge is based either on the officers' own observations or on the second-hand observations of an informant.The police are limited in their ability to use secondhand information. As a general rule, the information must be reliable given the circumstances. Generally, reliable information is corroborated by police observation. For example, a citizen's tip that someone regularly delivers drugs to a certain location would be corroborated if an officer observes the person's routine. But corroboration is not necessary in every case. Sometimes a judge will issue a warrant if the source of the information is known to the police and has provided trustworthy information in the past.
What are the police allowed to do after they obtain a search warrant?
Once the police have a search warrant, they are entitled to enter the designated property to search for the items listed on the warrant. Legally, the search is supposed to be confined to the specific areas described in the warrant. For example, if the search warrant includes only the living room, the search should not extend into the kitchen, bathroom or bedroom. But there are exceptions to this limitation which are frequently used to justify broader searches. For example, the police may search beyond the terms of the warrant in order to:
* ensure their safety and the safety of others
* prevent the destruction of evidence
* discover more about possible evidence or contraband that is in plain view elsewhere on the property, or
* hunt for evidence or contraband that, as a result of their initial search, they believe exists in another location on the property.
For instance, although a warrant might be issued for the search of a house, the sound of a shotgun being loaded in the backyard would justify expanding the search to the yard in order to protect the officers; similarly, a search limited to the ground floor might legitimately expand to the upstairs if the police, searching for illegal drugs, hear toilets being flushed above. And the police can always seize evidence or illegal items if they are in plain view or are discovered while the officers are searching for the items listed in the warrant.
Do the police always need a warrant to conduct a search?
No. In many situations, police may legally conduct a search without first obtaining a warrant.
* Consent searches. If the police ask your permission to search your home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you agree, the search is considered consensual, and they don't need a warrant. The police typically obtain a person's consent by threatening to detain her while they obtain the warrant.
* Searches that accompany an arrest. When a person is placed under arrest, the police may search the person and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm the officer. If the person is taken to jail, the police may search to make sure that weapons or contraband are not brought into the jail. (This is called an inventory search.) Inventory searches also frequently involve a search of the arrested person's car (if it is being held by the police) and personal effects on the theory that the police need a precise record of the person's property to avoid claims of theft.
* Searches necessary to protect the safety of the public. The police don't need a warrant if they have a reasonable fear that their safety, or that of the public, is in imminent danger. For example, an officer who suspected a bomb-making operation while walking his beat might be justified in entering immediately and seizing the ingredients. And in the famous O.J. Simpson case, the police justified their entry onto O.J. Simpson's property on the grounds that they feared for the safety of other family members.
* Searches necessary to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. A police officer does not need to obtain a warrant if she has observed illegal items (such as weapons or contraband) and believes that the items will disappear unless the officer takes prompt action. This exception arises most frequently when the police spot contraband or weapons in a car. Because cars are moved so frequently, the officer is justified in searching the entire vehicle, including the trunk, without obtaining a warrant. On the other hand, if the police learn about a marijuana-growing operation from a neighbor, they usually would need a warrant, as it is unlikely that the growing plants and other evidence of the operation will disappear quickly enough to justify a warrantless search.
* "Hot pursuit" searches. Police may enter private dwellings to search for criminals who are fleeing the scene of a crime.
Back to top
Can my roommate-or my landlord-give the police permission to search my apartment?
The police may search your apartment if the person in charge of the premises gives permission. If you and your roommate share common areas (such as the kitchen and living room), your roommate can authorize a search of those areas. But your roommate cannot give permission to search your separate bedroom.
Similarly, your landlord cannot give permission to search your apartment. Although the landlord owns the property, your monthly check guarantees your privacy at home. This is true even if you are behind in your rent or your landlord has sued to evict you. Until the landlord has a court order that permits him to enter and retake the premises, he cannot enter without your permission. (But keep in mind that many states allow a landlord to enter for inspections, which usually require advance notice of a day or two.) If the police can point to circumstances that would justify immediate entry, however -- such as the sound of a ferocious fight or the smell of burning marijuana -- they may enter without permission from anyone.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-81B70BE7-806D-43EB-8632156E62570E6E.html
Understanding Search and Seizure Law
Learn when the government can invade your privacy to hunt for evidence of a crime.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests; search people and their property; and seize objects documents and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law.Search and seizure law is constantly in flux and so complex that entire books are devoted to it. This article covers the basic issues that you should know, beginning with an overview of the Fourth Amendment itself.
The Fourth Amendment: Protecting Your Privacy
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
"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."
The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. Most people instinctively understand the concept of privacy. It is the freedom to decide which details of your life will be revealed to the public and which will be revealed only to those you care to share them with. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.
The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel or whatever, if:
* the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
* the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.
Search warrants are discussed in detail in Search Warrants: What They Are and When They're Necessary.
When the Fourth Amendment Doesn't Protect You
As mentioned just above, the Fourth Amendment permits "reasonable" searches. But before getting to the question of whether or not a particular search is reasonable, and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment, it must be determined whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the search in the first place.
The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.
Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched.
* Did the person subjectively (actually) expect some degree of privacy?
* Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable, that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
Only if both questions are answered with a "yes" will a court go on to ask the next, ultimate question: Was the search reasonable or unreasonable?
For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has a subjective expectation of privacy) and most people -- including judges and juries -- would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
On the other hand, when the police find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (a subjective expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).
A good example of how this works comes from a recent U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger's head, and that the physical probing by the police of the bag's exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to Fourth Amendment limitations.(Bond v. U.S., No. 98-9349 (April 17, 2000).)
Restrictions on Private Security Personnel
Private security personnel currently outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, whether you're shopping in a supermarket or a pharmacy, working in an office building or visiting a friend in a housing project, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. At the present time, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards. For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting on a pure hunch (that is, lacking probable cause) searches a teenager's backpack. Inside the backpack the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police and turn the drug over to a police officer. The drug is admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard. As private security guards increasingly exercise traditional police functions, courts may one day apply Fourth Amendment guidelines to their conduct.
What Happens When A Search Violates the Fourth Amendment
If, upon review, a court finds that a search occurred and decides that the search was illegal (unreasonable), any evidence seized as a result of the search cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution, state or federal. This rule, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961, has come to be known as the "exclusionary rule." To this day, many commentators criticize it on the ground that it unfairly "lets the criminal go free because the constable has erred." But the rule's supporters argue that excluding illegally seized evidence is necessary to deter police from conducting illegal searches. According to this deterrence argument, the police won't conduct improper searches if the resulting evidence can't be used to convict the defendant.
In addition to being excluded as evidence against the defendant, evidence resulting from an illegal search may not be used to discover other evidence under a legal rule colorfully known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The "tree" is the evidence that the police illegally seize in the first place; the "fruit" is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence. Both tree and fruit are inadmissible at trial.
Example:
Officer Wiley arrests Hy Lowe for selling phony telephone cards. A judge rules that Officer Wiley illegally entered Lowe's home and improperly seized a map showing the location where Lowe hid the phone cards. Because Officer Wiley obtained the map through an illegal search, the phone cards are the fruit of that unlawful search and are therefore inadmissible in evidence.
Some defendants believe that if they can show that a search was illegal, the case must be dismissed. Not true. If a prosecutor has enough other evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the case can continue. Also, the illegally-seized evidence can be:
* considered by a judge when deciding on an appropriate sentence following conviction
* admitted in civil and deportation cases, and
* in some circumstances, be used by a prosecutor to impeach (attack the credibility of) a witness who testifies in the trial.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-DED24689-ADA8-4785-887A0B4A19A694DE.html
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests; search people and their property; and seize objects documents and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law.Search and seizure law is constantly in flux and so complex that entire books are devoted to it. This article covers the basic issues that you should know, beginning with an overview of the Fourth Amendment itself.
The Fourth Amendment: Protecting Your Privacy
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
"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."
The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. Most people instinctively understand the concept of privacy. It is the freedom to decide which details of your life will be revealed to the public and which will be revealed only to those you care to share them with. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.
The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel or whatever, if:
* the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
* the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.
Search warrants are discussed in detail in Search Warrants: What They Are and When They're Necessary.
When the Fourth Amendment Doesn't Protect You
As mentioned just above, the Fourth Amendment permits "reasonable" searches. But before getting to the question of whether or not a particular search is reasonable, and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment, it must be determined whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the search in the first place.
The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.
Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched.
* Did the person subjectively (actually) expect some degree of privacy?
* Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable, that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
Only if both questions are answered with a "yes" will a court go on to ask the next, ultimate question: Was the search reasonable or unreasonable?
For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has a subjective expectation of privacy) and most people -- including judges and juries -- would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
On the other hand, when the police find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (a subjective expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).
A good example of how this works comes from a recent U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger's head, and that the physical probing by the police of the bag's exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to Fourth Amendment limitations.(Bond v. U.S., No. 98-9349 (April 17, 2000).)
Restrictions on Private Security Personnel
Private security personnel currently outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, whether you're shopping in a supermarket or a pharmacy, working in an office building or visiting a friend in a housing project, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. At the present time, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards. For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting on a pure hunch (that is, lacking probable cause) searches a teenager's backpack. Inside the backpack the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police and turn the drug over to a police officer. The drug is admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard. As private security guards increasingly exercise traditional police functions, courts may one day apply Fourth Amendment guidelines to their conduct.
What Happens When A Search Violates the Fourth Amendment
If, upon review, a court finds that a search occurred and decides that the search was illegal (unreasonable), any evidence seized as a result of the search cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution, state or federal. This rule, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961, has come to be known as the "exclusionary rule." To this day, many commentators criticize it on the ground that it unfairly "lets the criminal go free because the constable has erred." But the rule's supporters argue that excluding illegally seized evidence is necessary to deter police from conducting illegal searches. According to this deterrence argument, the police won't conduct improper searches if the resulting evidence can't be used to convict the defendant.
In addition to being excluded as evidence against the defendant, evidence resulting from an illegal search may not be used to discover other evidence under a legal rule colorfully known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The "tree" is the evidence that the police illegally seize in the first place; the "fruit" is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence. Both tree and fruit are inadmissible at trial.
Example:
Officer Wiley arrests Hy Lowe for selling phony telephone cards. A judge rules that Officer Wiley illegally entered Lowe's home and improperly seized a map showing the location where Lowe hid the phone cards. Because Officer Wiley obtained the map through an illegal search, the phone cards are the fruit of that unlawful search and are therefore inadmissible in evidence.
Some defendants believe that if they can show that a search was illegal, the case must be dismissed. Not true. If a prosecutor has enough other evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the case can continue. Also, the illegally-seized evidence can be:
* considered by a judge when deciding on an appropriate sentence following conviction
* admitted in civil and deportation cases, and
* in some circumstances, be used by a prosecutor to impeach (attack the credibility of) a witness who testifies in the trial.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-DED24689-ADA8-4785-887A0B4A19A694DE.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)