Search and seizures - Essay Example

Constitution are meant to protect the citizens from any act that may infringe on their privacy and therefore every person is protected from any form of unreasonable search or seizure by the state or its federal agencies at the time of enforcement of the law. However, the Fourth amendment also allows searches and seizures in some instances especially when it is considered reasonable and for the interest of the public. This means that law enforcement agencies may at times put aside a person’s concern about his privacy or that of his property and conduct a search or a seizure without a warrant.

For this to be qualified, it must be proven that the agency has a probable cause to have a strong conviction that they may find from you may point to the commission of a crime or that certain circumstances have justified that a search or a seizure should be conducted without a warrant. Mapp vs Ohio (1961) The facts of this case are that the police stormed into Ms Mapp’s house believing that a bombing suspect was hiding in there despite her protests. The police carried a piece of paper to her that they claimed to have been a warrant of search when she demanded that a search warrant be presented to her before the search is carried out.

It later turned out that the paper the police waved to her was not a search warrant neither was the bombing suspect hiding in the house. However, the police found sexually explicit books and photographs in her home and she was later convicted for possession of obscene items under the Ohio state law. She appealed her conviction on the basis of the First Amendment but the court quashed the conviction on the basis that she could not be convicted on the basis of items obtained without a search warrant as it violated her right as enshrined in the Fourth amendment of the United States constitution.

The court based its ruling on the exclusionary rule that forms an important part of the Fourth Amendment that prohibits any state from depriving any person the right to life, liberty or property without following the due process of the law (Stocks, 73). Katz vs United States, 389 U.S.347 (1967) This case affirmed that wiretapping of conversations in public payphones without a warrant grossly violated the protections against unreasonable search and seizure as enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

The petitioner Katz was charged in a court of law for being engaged in gambling through state telephone lines that was deemed to be illegal by the authorities. State enforcement agencies used warrantless wiretaps to listen and track his conversations on matters that touched on the illegal gambling transactions. Through an almost unanimous vote of 7-1, the U.S Supreme Court held that the placing of a warrantless wiretap on public payphones is a violation of the rights that citizens enjoy under the Fourth Amendment (Stephens and Richard, 335).

There was a test on the constitutionality of private conversations done in public places that has been applied by numerous courts thereafter. These include whether the person under charge has exhibited an expectation of want of privacy and that the larger public as that which is reasonable can recognize the expectation. Chimel vs California (1969) The question that the court was faced with in this case is what constitutes an unreasonable search as compared with the rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the United States.

This was an evaluation of those instances that a police officer may conduct what can be