Legality and Validity of Arrest, Search and Seizure - Research Paper Example

An Essay about the Legality and Validity of Arrest, Search and Seizure in Connection with the Provisions of the Fourth Amendment I. Introduction As part of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under certain circumstances. To be lawful, a search conducted on the person or property of the person should be done by virtue of a search warrant issued by a judge and supported by evidence of probable cause. In defining search, the court in the case of Katz V. United States1, said that a search occurs when a the authorities go through the things of a person that are commonly considered as private. When such search is made unreasonable, the person subjected to the search may seek the protection of the Fourth Amendment and have the search declare illegal. According to the court in the case of Mapp v. Ohio2, a search and seizure which violates the provisions of the law is deemed illegal and the evidences gathered through this unlawful act may be excluded in Court. II. Probable Cause Requirement In order for a search to be considered as legal, probable cause must be shown and a warrant must be obtained. A common definition of probably cause provides for a reasonable amount of suspicion that is supported by evidences that may cause a prudent person to believe the allegations may be true3. In other words, probable cause does not mean that the evidences or circumstances relied upon for the issuance of the warrant are absolutely true but rather it is enough the persons or the office seeking for the issuance is able to show that there may be chance that criminal activities have been or are being committed. According to the court in the case of Illinois v. Gates4, where there is a substantial chance or fair probability that a criminal act or activity is being perpetuated, the may issue a warrant to search the premises of the suspect and make an arrest whenever necessary. If the police of fail to show probably cause for the search and seizure or made a search into the personal properties of the person, the police may be liable for violations of the Fourth Amendment. III. Legality of Warrantless Arrest, Search, and Seizure Although the Fourth Amendment guarantees the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, it does not prohibit warrant less arrest and seizures under certain circumstances. An arrest is affected by taking a person into custody and limiting his or her freedom to move around. A person may be said to under arrest even if he or she is not handcuffed as long as he or she is taken under the custody of a lawful officer and he or she may not leave the premises where he or she is being kept without proper discharge from the detaining officer. Arrest may be done by the authorities and by private citizens depending on the circumstances present. A formal arrest made by the police may be done with or without a warrant. To obtain an arrest warrant, the police should satisfy the probably cause requirement set under the law. However, in certain cases such as when a crime is currently perpetrated, the police do not need a warrant to arrest the perpetrator and do a search on his person. According to the court in the case of United States v. Robinson5, during a custodial arrest, the police have the right to do a full search on the person and evidence found during the search may be admissible in court against the suspect. For instance, if a person or groups of persons are caught while committing armed robbery, these people may be arrested and searched by the officers who respond to the crime scene. A warrantless search and seizure may also be deemed valid if consent of the owner of the property has been obtained before hand or when the illegal object was in plain view of the police officer. When it comes to open field searches, the police officers do not need to obtain a warrant to search open fields and any evidences gathered by the officers while reaching an open field may be admissible in court. According to the Court in the case of Hester v United States6, what the Fourth Amendment sought to protect is the unreasonable search and seizures done on the persons, houses, papers, and effects. As it is, this protection does not extent to open spaces where anybody can roam around with no restrictions. Another exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances rule, when the search and seizure is incidental to a valid arrest. Under the exigent circumstance rule, the police may be exempt from the warrant requirement if it affected search and seizure on the person under the grounds that there is an immediate treat to the lives of the people within the vicinity. When it comes to moving vehicles, the police may arrest, reach and seize a person and his or her properties under certain circumstances, including stop and frisk on the street done by law enforcement officers7, sobriety checkpoints8, immigration checkpoints9, checkpoints to verify driver’s licenses and registration10 and information checkpoints for crime-fighting purposes11. Note that when a person is on the road and has the ability to elude arrest, the police have the right to do a warrantless search and seizure by flagging the vehicle. IV. Arrest, Searches and Seizures Done by Private Persons A private citizen may lawfully arrest a criminal that he or he caught in the act of committing a crime. In the United States, except for the state of North Carolina, the authorities allow citizens to make an arrest if they witness a crime being perpetuated12. However, unlike the police officers who are mandated and protected by law to make arrest, a private citizen does not enjoy the protection of the law when making an arrest. This means that when a private citizen makes an arrest, he or she may be held liable for any infringement on the rights of the person that he or she is arresting13. References: Books and Journals 1. Davies . (1999) Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment, Michigan Law Review Vol. 98 pp. 547–750 2. Handler, J.G., (1994) Ballentines Law Dictionary: Legal Assistant Edition Cases 1. Delaware v Prouse 440 US 648 (1979) 2. Hester v United States, 265 US 57 (1924) 3. Illinois v Lidster 540 US 419 (2004) 4. Illinois v. Gates (1983) 5. Katz V. United States, 389 US 347 (1967) 6. Mapp v. Ohio 367 US 643 (1961) 7. Michigan v Sitz 496 US 444 (1990) 8. Terry v Ohio 392 US 1 (1968) 9. United States v Martinez-Fuerte 428 US 543 (1976) 10. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) Read More