2500 CJ MOD 5 ROUGH LM

Running head: SEARCH AND SEIZURE 2

SEARCH AND SEIZURE 2

Search and Seizure

Lashawn Mathis

CJ 2500

8/21/2022

Search and Seizure

The unalienable right of citizens to be secure in their homes or public spaces against unwarranted searches or property seizures is captured in the fourth amendment. The framers of the fourth amendment envisioned that free citizens should not be subject to unsanctioned government intrusion (Walter, 2020). Two main protections are captured in this amendment. First, the physical arrests of citizens by law enforcement personnel in traffic stops. Police officers are required to obtain arrest warrants from courts before they apprehend a suspect. Moreover, a citizen is entitled to demand for warrants before submitting to authorities. Second, the amendment prohibits searches on locations where a person is legally entitled to privacy like luggage, cars, homes or body frisking (Territo, 2006). The fourth amendment implications on search and seizure is discussed in this paper.

The fourth amendment is not an absolute right. There are numerous exemptions to its applicability. Law enforcement personnel are legally empowered to conduct searches or effect arrests without warrants in the following circumstances. First, where there is probable cause or suspicions that a person is armed or about to commit crimes. Police are empowered to stop and frisk suspects for dangerous weapons or drugs. Stop and frisk is a controversial policy in fighting crime in the US. It has exacerbated segregation or racial profiling in the country. The probability of Blacks, Latinos or Muslims being frisked is three times higher than whites (Thompson, 2019). Apportioning crime to certain communities is not an effective way to eradicate crime. Second, plain view spotting of items connected to crime or perpetration of crime. On such occasions, police officers can apprehend the suspects or seize the property minus warrants. Thirdly, vehicle searches whenever there is probable cause to believe that they are ferrying contrabands, drugs or other illegal items. Fourthly, hot pursuit of suspects. Police officers can enter buildings or locations where the pursued suspect is hiding without warrants. Emergency situations merit exemptions. Police officers don’t require warrants to search buildings where there are bomb threats. Thy need to act quickly to save lives.

Violations of citizens fourth amendment rights attracts punitive punishments from the courts. Evidences obtained through illegal arrests neither supported by legal warrants nor convincing probable cause reasons are automatically expunged from court proceedings (Walter, 2020). This might be a major blow to the prosecution if the evidence was the bedrock of the case. Non-compliance to laws has led to the acquittal of many dangerous criminals. The same standards are applicable to evidences obtained through illegal home searches.

Search and seizure protections enshrined in the fourth amendment are essential in a democratic society in the following ways. First, safeguarding citizens privacy. Security apparatus are denied the monopoly of intruding people’s privacy without court documents. Private property and homes should be treated with dignity. Currently, the fourth amendment has proved inadequate in guaranteeing citizens privacy (Territo, 2006). The emergence of new threats like terrorism has emboldened governments in interfering with people’s privacy in the name of security. For instance, the 9/11 attacks led to the enactment of the patriot act by US congress. The act significantly expanded powers of security and intelligence agencies in tackling terrorism. However, citizens privacy was the greatest casualty of the law. The freedom accorded to intelligence services in intercepting communications and pursuing terrorists in the digital front affected many law-abiding citizens (Carpenter, 2020). Recent revelations have highlighted the magnitude of subsequent programs in eliminating digital privacy. Currently, people make phone calls, send emails or engage in social media knowing that the contents of their discussion is vulnerable to interception by not only criminals but also governments.

Second, security of citizens private property against seizures is guaranteed. In authoritarian regimes, governments can confiscate private property without following due process. However, such occurrences are rare in constitutional republics where fidelity to the law is supreme. Thirdly, citizens are assured of court protections in case of illegal arrests. A suspect is only required to prove that he or she was not served with an arrest warrant. The threat of non-inclusion of evidences obtained through unlawful seizures or arrests encourages police officers to be meticulous in their duties.

Fourth amendment restrictions are counterproductive in fighting crime. First, it constrains police officers in their mandate to safeguard the public (Richardson, 2016). Obtaining search or arrest warrants is a lengthy procedure. Police officers are required to make court applications and make arguments before the presiding judge concurs or rescinds their requests. The whole process slows down the course of police investigations. Moreover, the suspects have ample time to hide evidences if they are given tip offs. Second, the restrictions complicate the task of gathering evidence (Territo, 2006). The best opportunity to find incriminating evidence is when the suspect is unaware of the police trap. Warrant requirements cause police officers to miss these windows. It is illogical for an officer to seize evidence when there is credible threat of it being rejected in a court of law. Moreover, defense attorneys have perfected the art of utilizing fourth amendment loopholes to apply for evidence dismissals. The prosecution is left with no option but to withdraw the case. It is a blow to the law enforcement community when criminals are set free by courts on technical grounds.

In conclusion, the search and seizure restrictions are critical in constraining the immense power wielded by the state over the citizens. It has limited oppression of citizen rights on unfounded grounds of security. Whereas exemptions to fourth amendment restrictions are critical in safeguarding individual rights, the exemptions should be equitably applied. It is unfair for stop and frisk policies to be utilized as oppression instruments against minority communities (Thompson, 2019). There are good and bad people in all races. Criminality is not a function of race. The fourth amendment has good and bad perspectives. From ordinary citizens’ perspective, it is vital in guaranteeing privacy and preventing illegal arrests or harassments from police officers. It is bad from police officers’ perspectives. It complicates their mandate making it challenging to gather evidence that reaches a conviction threshold. Moreover, criminals utilize it to avoid punishments.

References

Carpenter, C. (2020). Privacy and Proportionality: Examining Mass Electronic Surveillance under Article 8 and the Fourth Amendment. International and Comparative Law Review, 20(1), 27-57.

Richardson, L. S. (2016). Police efficiency and the Fourth Amendment. Indiana Law Review Journal, 87, 1143.

Swanson, C., Chamelin, C., Territo, L., and Taylor, R. (2006). Criminal investigation. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Thompson, A. C. (2019). Stopping the usual suspects: Race and the fourth amendment. Oxford University Press.

Walter, J. (2020). A pragmatic study of fourth amendment search and seizure restrictions. Journal of American Philosophy, 47(3-4), 248-268.