The Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure - Essay Example

Search and Seizure The Fourth Amendment accords people the right against search and seizure that is unreasonable. The security against these unreasonable seizures and searches extends to people’s effects, houses and persons. Violation of this right requires a warrant that issued only with probable cause that requires the support of an affirmation or an oath. The amendment requires such a warrant to articulate the persons intended for searching and the items targeted for seizure. The provisions of this amendment imply the expectation of privacy from individuals who contend possible violation of the amendment. This paper discusses a case about the violation of the Fourth Amendment exposing the dynamics of its interpretation and application. The case between Brigham City and Stuart of 2006 is an exemplar of search and seizure cases. Brigham City police responded to a call that came in at around three o’clock in the morning. The call was a complaint about a loud party in a certain neighborhood in Brigham. On arrival to the house in question, the police confirmed that indeed there was shouting and drinking. The police observed some individuals fighting in the kitchen, and an officer entered the house and announced his presence. The officer arrested the adults present at the scene and pressed charges against them including encouraging delinquency. The trial court allowed the suppression of the prosecution’s evidence and Utah Court of Appeals affirmed this suppression (Schulhofer, 2012). The suppression of evidence was on the basis that the officers' entry into the house was warrantless hence violating the Fourth Amendment. Utah State Supreme Court affirmed this decision suspending any claim on the emergency aid doctrine and exigency of the situation. The court cited the absence of an objective reasonable belief that there was a missing, semiconscious or unconscious person in the premises. It was this notion that the court used to suspend any claim on the emergency aid doctrine. The emergency doctrine excuses individuals from acting reasonably in lieu of an urgent need to offer aid in an emergency situation. The court suspended the doctrine also because the officers acted in the capacity of law enforcers and not in assistance to the injured individual. The court refuted the exigency of the situation as it lacked persuasion about the officers’ warrantless entry (Clancy, 2008). The Supreme Court reversed the case and referred it back to court for fresh proceedings varying from the initial judgment. The concept of reasonableness that is central in the provisions of the Fourth Amendment allows some exceptions to the need for a warrant. One such exception is a need to offer emergency assistance to individuals occupying a private property in the event of injury or threat of injury. The U.S Supreme Court objects to the consideration of the personal motivations of officers in assessing officers' level of reasonableness. Pursuant to this, the Court suspended all contentions about whether the officers entered the premise to arrest the rowdy, collect evidence, assist injured or stop violence. The plaintiffs asserted that their conduct was not as serious as to invite the officers’ warrantless entry into the premise. This draws from a previous Supreme Court case between Welsh and Wisconsin. The case admitted the seriousness of the offense in question as an important consideration in assessing reasonableness (Woody, 2006). In this case, though, the Welsh case could not apply entirely as it did not address the issue of ongoing violence happening in a home. The police’ warrantless entry into the premise did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Knocking at the door would have been of no use as there was tumult and the people inside the house would not have heard the knocking (Schulhofer, 2012). The fighting observed by the officers through screen windows and doors supports the reasonableness of their warrantless entry. It made the officers believe that if not interrupted, the fight would continue and cause injuries. The Fourth Amendment does not imply that the officers were to wait for the fight to escalate into serious injuries before acting. In fact, it was when the officers moved in and announced their presence that the fighting stopped. The officers’ entry into the premise was reasonable given the circumstances at the scene. The officers announced their presence while outside the kitchen where the fighting was taking place. They later entered the kitchen and announced their presence again before making arrests. The repeated announcement is the equivalence of the knocking and announcement rule prescribed in the Fourth Amendment. The first announcement sufficed the officers to enter into the scene of violence. Otherwise, it would not have made sense if the officers knocked and stood outside the premise waiting to be let in when the loud party and violence continued inside the house. The prudence of a trained officer required the officers to go in and save the situation (Clancy, 2008). The case served to expose the differences between courts of appeal and state courts on the Fourth Amendment’s allowance of warrantless entry into an emergency scene. The In re Sealed Case of 1998 resulted in the resolution that objectivity should be the standard for exigency. The case between United States and Cervantes of 2000 strengthened this notion. It resolved that the motivation of a search conducted within the emergency aid doctrine should not be solely to make an arrest or seize evidence. In a case between State and Mountford, in 2000, the court resolved that such searches be strictly guided by an intention to offer assistance. The Supreme Court objected respondents’ claim that the officers did not seem interested in stopping the violence. This is because the court considers the effects of an officer’s actions more important than his or her state of mind (Woody, 2006). In conclusion, the Fourth Amendment accords people the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Contending the violation of the amendment requires the plaintiff to prove the violation of their expectation of privacy. There are different warrants meant to vindicate law enforcers from the prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment. Such warrants include search and arrest warrants. A probable cause is a requirement for the issuance of a warrant or making an arrest. There are certain exceptions to the Fourth Amendment including the sudden need for emergency assistance. Prosecution’s failure to prove the exigency of a situation that guaranteed their warrantless entry into a crime scene can lead to the suppression of evidence. References Clancy, T. K. (2008). The Fourth Amendment: Its history and interpretation. Durham, N.C: Carolina Academic Press. Schulhofer, S. J. (2012). More essential than ever: The Fourth Amendment in the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press. Woody, R. H. (2006). Search and seizure: The Fourth Amendment (for law enforcement officers. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Read More