Search And Seizure

The constitution has been the back bone of the United States legal system since it was first written and signed by our founding fathers. This document has been the topic of many heat debates and has gone through many changes and interpretations throughout the years. The forth amendment of the constitution is one of the most debated amendments. This is the amendment that covers the area of search and seizure as well as privacy. The fourth amendment states, "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." With this being written many people have had to interpret this on different levels since it was first written, especially police officers. In its most basic explanation the forth amendment limits the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband.

The fourth amendment's intended duty is to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment demands that searches made by the government be reasonable. It also states that warrants must be supported by probable cause and specifically state who is being arrested or exactly what is being searched for and eventually seized. Yet this does not mean that a search can not be performed without a warrant. If a police officer believes a crime has been or is being committed with probable cause a warrantless search may be conducted. Another important part to the fourth amendment is the exclusionary rule. This rule makes it clear that any evidence seized during an illegal search or violation of the fourth amendment not admissible during a criminal trial. The main goal of this rule was to deter police officers from violating suspects' constitutional rights.

The forth amendment grew from the experience of the colonials dealing with the King of England. It was created to protect against the multiple invasions of privacy by the British government against the American colonists. A British law called "writs of assistance" which allowed royal police to search homes of citizens in order to find violations of British customs laws. This was the thought behind the fourth amendment by the founding fathers. Yet in England it was said that every man's house was his castle, this was not applied to the colonies. The first case in English law to question the right of police of the King's men to enter a home without reason was Semanyne's case. This case recognized that people had the right to defend unlawful entry into their homes. On the other side this case also stated that with notice to arrest or an order to carry out the King's wishes it was okay for the authorities to enter ones home. Searching home had become something that could not be decided with an easy yes or no answer it seemed that each case was different and the law must be applied in that way. John Wilkes was one the men that really brought the issue of search and seizure to the headlines back in colonial times. A warrant was issues to search his home in order to find papers of criminal nature, but his home was ransacked and destroyed. The court found that the warrant in this case was bad since there was no probable cause. Before this entire situation police had a free reign to do whatever they pleased. Many people did not question a police officer or government authority in any matter. The forth amendment after written made it very clear that a warrant was needed by authorities to perform a search or a seizure of anything, unless in a designated circumstance. This seemed like the best way to limit the powers of the police. In recent times the protections under the fourth amendment have not been held to such a high standard as they were back in colonial times. Since the level of seriousness of crime has risen since the constitution was written it has made it difficult for judges to make the right call as to privacy rights. The way the fourth amendment is being followed today is much different then in colonial times and this is due to the fact that it is now tailored to deal with crimes like drugs and terrorism.

There are a few cases that are associated with the forth amendment and search and seizure. The cases that are most recognized are Mapp v. Ohio, the Olmstead Case, Terry v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States. These two case look at different aspects of the amendment and help to set the precedents for cases like these. Another act involved with the fourth amendment is the Federal Communications Act.

In the case Mapp v. Ohio, the police received a tip that a possible bomber was hiding in the home of Ms. Mapp. The police went to Ms. Mapp's home claimed to have a warrant entered the home and searched the entire home. During the search Mapp struggled with an officer to see the warrant and was placed in handcuffs. The search resulted in the police finding obscene materials; Mapp was then arrested for possession of these. Mapp's lawyer argued that no warrant was produced prior to the search of her home, which meant that the material found could not be used in court against Mapp. This case was taken to the Supreme Court where it received a 6 -3 decision in Mapp's favor. The court stated, "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is by the same authority, inadmissible in a state court." With this decision it was made clear the police would no longer be allowed to just go into any home with out the proper warrants. Police now had the added job of making sure there was probable cause before a warrant would be issued. This case helped to really uphold the statements made in the forth amendment and made sure that peoples privacy was kept sacred.

In the Olmstead case the governmental agencies used wiretapped to listen in on private phone conversation of the Roy Olmstead. Olmstead was eventually convicted for conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act by transporting and selling alcohol.

This case came about around the time the microphone, telephone, and dictograph recorder were invented. With these new inventions it made it much easier for the police to listen in or eavesdrop on suspects conversations. In 1928 the reviewed case that involved evidence gained through taps on phones. This evidence at the time was found to be in violation of state law. When this case went to the Supreme Court in was found in a close 5 to 4 vote that wiretapping was found within the scope of the fourth amendment. It was stated that the fourth amendment was intended to protect items on someone's person or property. With wiretapping