The Search Warrant Requirement - Essay Example

Running head: EXCEPTIONS TO THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT IN AMENDMENT RIGHTS Discussion Board 5 Discussion Board 5Unreasonable searches and seizures are guarded by the United States Constitution under the fourth amendment. This came about due to the controversial writs of assistance during American Revolution. The amendment IV is has two distinct parts whereby: The first part usually safeguards people against unreasonable searches and seizures. There had been numerous ways of remedying unreasonable searches in the ancient times unlike in the modern jurisprudence that has facilitated respect of the amendment by the police officers. The second part usually concerns the proper issue of warrants whereby it states that there should be a probable cause in case a warrant has been issued. The totality of circumstances tests the probable cause. A clear distinction of the amendment can be seen whereby one part deals with arrest by state police while on the other hand, the second part concerns searching and seizing somebody's property. A police officer cannot be said to be conducting a search where he/she looks through the window when walking along the street. This is because the window is viewable by anyone one walking along that street. For example in Katz v. United States, a case ruled by the Supreme Court that there was no search if a person has an expectation of privacy and this expectation should be reasonable. For this case, if a police officer looks through the garbage, this cannot be termed as a search since there is not expectation that the garbage is private. The Congress has already placed statutory restrictions on incidents like when a police officer monitors telephone numbers dialed by individuals. At one time, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Florida v. Riley, where police officers had hovered above a suspect's house with a helicopter and conducted surveillance. There can be no expectation of privacy in illegal activities. For example where a police officer uses a drug sniffing dog to investigate an illegal activity is not a search. Under certain circumstances, it is not necessary for warrant for a search or seizure. For this case, the police officer must have a probable cause that makes him believe that the object in question is contraband before the search and seizure. There is search without a warrant on open fields if at all; the person conducting his activity in the open field had no reasonable expectation of privacy. For this case the meaning of 'open field' doctrine is expanded so that it includes any open space. For example in a case that was ruled by the Supreme Court that there was no search where the police had ignored a "no trespassing" sign when they entered the suspect's land without a warrant and as they walked through a path to the interior, they discovered he had planted marijuana in his land. The Supreme Court ruled in this case of Oliver v. United States that no search had taken place at the suspect's land. At time, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement for example in case the police officer suspects that the accused is likely to destroy evidence. For this case, the police officer is permitted to search and seize the suspect's property for evidence without a warrant. According to Supreme Court, individuals have reduced expectation of privacy while driving in their vehicles since the vehicles are not repositories of personal effects nor do they serve as a residence place. However, the automobiles are not supposed to be randomly stopped to be searched without a probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminals driving in it. The police officer for this case is allowed to extend the search to any part of the vehicle where they believe weapons or drugs could be hidden. They may also extend their search to the passengers if there is a probable cause to search them if he suspects that they may hiding drugs or any harmful weapon. If a person has not been arrested and it appears that he has to be searched, then the search should be conducted in an area where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. For this case, the police officers are required to get such permissions from the court in order to conduct the search. For instance it would be unlawful to force a suspect to undergo a surgery in order to uncover incriminating evidence since this interferes with his human body privacy. However, the federal agents are permitted to conduct a search on the medical records that do not require court approval under HIPPA. In some circumstances, it is not a must that there should be a probable cause for a police officer to conduct a search. For this case, a police officer may conduct a search if he suspects that if one is a threat to others on reasonable suspicion. A search can be conducted by a police officer on reasonable suspicion if one is driving while drunk. On the other hand, one can be tested for drugs without necessarily establishing any probable cause. Before a search is conducted on an individual, he must be notified that a search is to be conducted and what they are searching. However, if the police officers believe that evidence may be destroyed after one is notified of the search, then for this case there should be no notification of the search. On the other hand, if an individual blood test is removed to conduct a pregnant test and the blood is used to test whether on has used illicit drugs, then this is termed as an illegal means of search since one was not informed that beside the pregnancy test, they would also conduct another test. The courts used exclusionary rule to dissuade police officers from not to conduct unlawful searches and seizures. For example in a case of United States v. Leon, that was ruled by the Supreme Court, the "good faith" rule was applied and it was held that the police officer relying on a warrant seized evidence that was later on found to be defective. That evidence would still have been excluded if the police officer had recklessly prepared an affidavit to act as a warrant if neutrality had been abandoned by the magistrate. Police officer searching public schools do not require a warrant or they should be no probable cause for them to conduct a search. On the other hand, government offices and prison cells should be searched without any restrains on probable cause or reasonableness. Reference Kilman, J. and George, C. (2000): The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. Read More