2
Abstract
Of all the powers thrust upon the shoulders of the police, no other avenue of investigation
is as invasive to the privacy of the general public as that of search and seizure. There are systems
in place that help mitigate the possible abuses of such legal influence, however it is best to
understand the historical heritage said tool possesses in order to avoid the same mistakes of the
past. America is unique primarily because it is one of the youngest world powers in modern
history. The foundations from where this nation stands come not from hundreds of years of past
customs, but from the transformation of European ideals. As such, the legal traditions of the
United States are redefined concepts from England that have been transformed in compliance
with the freedoms won with the Revolutionary war. Understanding this critical ideal serves to
carry the conversation on how, where, when, and why search and seizure legislation came to be
known as it is today.
3
Search and Seizure
The most invasive legal power within the American criminal justice system is the ability
of the police to conduct a search of one’s private property, in order to seize evidence related to a
particular case. While it may seem entirely contradictory to the cause of honest justice, said
action of searching out the truth has its roots in scripture. The Bible says in Proverbs 25:2, “It
is7the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings7is7to search out a matter”
(Proverbs 25:2, KJV, 1769/2023). Unfortunately, said principle of understanding has been
passionately abused to the point where this biblical backing to investigations has been lost
entirely. For the United States in particular, modern search and seizure laws are a direct result of
historical abuses within the criminal justice system and are still heavily debated to this day.
Historical Background
In the days of colonial America the reigning legal authority governing the people was that
of the English crown. Because of this, the same doctrine overshadowing the subjects of the King
overseas covered the citizens of the New World. The two powers in particular that haunted the
general public were that of general warrants and writs of assistance. Similar in their pursuit these
documents allowed officials to enter into any house, business, warehouse, shop, or cellar for the
purpose of searching for and seizing contraband. Unlike modern law which requires probable
cause amongst other things to justify obtaining documents for such actions, no stipulations
existed for the aforementioned powers of the colonial police. What made things worse was the
reality that said papers never expired. Once obtained, officials could forever harass citizens
suspected of harboring ill-gained goods with no legal protections in place on their behalf.
The Writs of Assistance case of 1761, where several merchants in Boston petitioned the
Superior Court of Massachusetts to challenge the legality of such documentation, began the
4
forever expanding process of balancing legal power with personal liberty. John Adams himself is
recognized for his belief that said trial was, “the moment when the child of American
independency was born” (Seltenreich, 2019, Para. 1). After multiple years of habitual harassment
and neglect for personal freedoms, the colonies eventually rose up against their oppressors in the
form of the Revolutionary war. After their successful withdrawal from England, the question
arose as to how to govern the newly founded American nation. On June 21st, 1788 the
Constitution of the United States was ratified with the Bill of Rights being implemented within it
as of December 15th, 1791.
What makes the Bill of Rights so special is that every protection established within was
created in direct defiance of the prejudice that preceded its creation. In the case of search and
seizure abuses brought on by general warrants and writs of assistance, no other amendment was
as critical to honest justice as that of the Fourth Amendment. “The Fourth Amendment was
enacted to prevent the government from utilizing general warrants. Instead, the government must
obtain a warrant that is based on the specificity or particularity of the person, place, or thing to be
searched” (Owsley, 2022, p. 149). It was through said excerpt that America began the process of
restricting unchecked power within criminal justice, leading to a legal logistical renaissance from
which the modern world owes its creation. It is especially important to note that just as the origin
of searches is grounded in scripture, so too is justice. The Bible says in Psalms 89:14, “Justice
and judgment7are7the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face” (Psalms
89:14, KJV, 1769/2023). The doctrine of search and seizure enjoyed by Americans today is not
an unjust invasion of privacy, but a biblically derived protection of such attributes brought on by
past injustice. Understanding this key component of how said legislation came to be provides a
solid framework in which to dissect the arguments made against this practice today, and how
5
best to negate repeating the mistakes of the past.
The Fourth Amendment in Action
Before examining the abuses in which the nation today justifies their plea for further
reform within the area of privacy vs. investigation, it becomes necessary to understand the details
within the current application of Fourth Amendment derived search and seizure. The law
recognizes via the Fourth Amendment that citizens have a right to be protected against
unreasonable applications of said invasive powers. This clause prevents the liberal distribution of
warrants to the police, particularly by requiring officials to present their case of probable cause
before a judge. If the authoritative body in question finds the claims presented to them viable,
then and only then will a search warrant be granted. This document is itself also limited to only
the specific persons, locations, and items detailed within it due to the observation that a person’s
property is under the protection of curtilage. Curtilage refers to areas of a person’s property that
are reserved for the private residence of that location. Ergo, warrants must be targeted in their
intent to avoid excessive breaches in one’s Constitutional privileges. The general goal of this
process is the continuation of an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy void of any
unnecessary legal penetration.
There are, however, particular exemptions to the warrant requirement in very specific
circumstances. Motor vehicles are one such avenue where this can be observed. “The 1925
Supreme Court case Carroll v. United States, written by Chief Justice William Howard Taft,
created the vehicle exception by allowing for warrantless searches of vehicles” (Snyder, 2020, p.
988). Motor vehicles, being mobile in nature, possess the added risk that any evidence within
them could be transported or destroyed during the process in which to obtain a warrant. In order
to avoid this unnecessary loss of tangible proof, officers are allowed to conduct a search if they
6
have probable cause. If no cause does in fact exist, a search may still be enacted only if consent
has been given by the citizens being seized to do so. The 1982 Supreme Court case of United
States v. Ross further extended the power of this ideal by allowing containers inside the vehicle
to be under the same warrantless requirements.
While this form of investigation may appear to be abusive in nature, the courts have
continuously been transforming the definitions of said statute to maintain the ever present
balance of liberty with privacy. The biggest example of this can be seen in the Supreme Court
cases of United States v. Jones from 2012 and Florida v. Jardines from 2013, where in, the
physical trespass test became revitalized. Because of such cases, “the Supreme Court recently
decided that, under Jardines and related decisions, police officers commit an unlicensed trespass
into the ‘curtilage’ of a home when they walk onto a suspect’s driveway and, without a warrant,
search a vehicle” (Russo, 2019, p. 1219). This reinforcement of Fourth Amendment protections
eliminates the potential undue hardships of unchecked vehicle searches, limiting said powers to
only those automobiles stopped while in the commencement of one’s legal duties.
Another equally important exemption to the warrant requirement is that of exigent
circumstances. Under said clause, officers are allowed to search and seize materials within an
emergency setting. The best example of this when referenced against the general public would be
in the case of suicide. In situations where in someone possesses the possible danger of ending
their own life, “Police officers may be empowered to enter a person’s home without a warrant
and seize firearms” (Vitiello et al., 2023, Para. 2). Additional justifications for this action of
involvement without a warrant include the prevention of property damage, rendering emergency
aid, eliminating the destruction of evidence, and many more. The exigent circumstances
exemption gives officers the ability to act in an immediate capacity where obtaining a warrant, or
7
being passive, would conclude with avoidable damages brought on by an officer’s negligence.
The goal of this system is protection through active service.
Similar to justice and searches in general, this aspect of helping in any situation without
reservation is itself biblical in origin. The Bible says in Hebrews 13:16, “But to do good and to
communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (Hebrews 13:16, KJV,
1769/2023). Acting without remorse in pursuit of justice, as previously described via the
Revolutionary war, is the heart from which the Bill of Rights exists. The Declaration of
Independence, being the framework where all other American legal documentation owes its
direction, is famously known for stating that all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. Exigent circumstance legislation attempts to uphold this right by motivating
officers to act in such a manner as to temporarily breach one’s privacy, in the name of lasting
security.
Arguments for Abuse
While designed for the betterment of society, there are instances in which search and
seizure law has been noticeably targeted against the American people. The biggest example of
this on a federal level is that of the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 created as a consequence of 9/11. On
September 11th, 2001 the largest domestic attack on American soil occurred. Due to the capture
of four separate commercial airplanes, locations across the United States became prime targets
for destruction. As a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the partial explosion of the
Pentagon, and the crash of the final plane it is estimate that approximately 2,977 American lives
were lost. 45 days later on October 26th, 2001 the Patriot Act was passed into law giving the
federal government the power to, amongst other things, invade the privacy of the American
people without a warrant or probable cause.
8
The specific breaches within this newly bestowed authority include the collection of
internet history through warrantless subpoenas, the creation of sneak and peak searches where
notice to the suspect was not immediately required to engage in search and seizure activities, the
installation of wiretaps, and readily available voicemail access. Despite everything in said
privileges requiring a warrant for implementation, minus the first, no balances of power such as
the requirement of probable cause existed to temper the excessive utilization of this domestic
surveillance. As a result, the principles of the Fourth Amendment became irrelevant. The
unreasonable clause of the amendment in question is contingent on the production and
justification of probable cause. By eliminating the necessity to reasonably pursue action against
another, the Patriot Act became a modern recreation of the writs of assistance and general
warrants once thought unfathomable to the American people. In short, the exigent circumstances
surrounding 9/11 became a catalyst for abuse. Although the Patriot Act is no longer applicable as
of 2020, the observation that rights are secondary to security in the eyes of the law remains a
heated debate to this very day.
Regardless the avenue of argumentation discussed within the topic of search and seizure,
such as stop and frisks being invasive or the dismissal of the castle doctrine within a warrantless
vehicle search, the central uniting characteristic amongst them all is the public’s concern
surrounding the annihilation of Constitutional rights. This is why a Bible centric approach to
criminal justice is essential for maintaining order and liberty. As expressed in Proverbs 25:2 the
ideal of searching for the truth is a scriptural concept, but it is only made righteous when put into
the context of other verses. The Bible says in Romans 13:1, “Let every soul be subject unto the
higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God”
(Romans 13:1, KJV, 1769/2023). Through this understanding comes the revelation that the
9
contents of the Bill of Rights are themselves God breathed. If this mentality can remain steadfast
when establishing future legislation for search and seizure procedure, the criminal justice system
and the public could begin to resolve their conflict of rights versus safety via the understanding
that God’s law does not compromise.
Conclusion
No matter what the future hold one truth remains steadfast; modern search and seizure
laws are a consequence of historical abuses. If it was not for the tyranny of Britain against the
colonies, the freedoms expressed within the U.S. Constitution would never have come into
fruition and the criminal justice system would have continued to be tyrannical in nature. It is
through understanding the intense background behind the protections of the Fourth Amendment
that officers of the law, and the public at large, may be better educated to forge an ever
expanding future of liberty. While there are exceptions to the warrant requirement that have the
potential to become unconstitutional, said powers are hindered by the restrictive nature with
which they may be applied. In conclusion, the topic of privacy versus liberty will forever remain
a heated debate as long as the bold American spirit of independence remains intact. As the Bible
says in Proverbs 28:1, “The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a
lion” (Proverbs 28:1, KJV, 1769/2023).
10
References
King James Bible. (2023). King James Bible Online. Accessed February 26, 2024 from
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Proverbs-25-2/
Owsley, B. L. (2022). George Floyd, General Warrants, and Cell-Site Simulators. American
Criminal Law Review, 59(1), 149. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?
handle=hein.journals/amcrimlr59&div=8&id=&page=
Russo, T. M. (2019). Garbage Pulls Under the Physical Trespass Test.!Virginia Law
Review,!105(6)
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/garbage-pulls-under-physical-trespass-test/docview/2621381367/se-2
Seltenreich, R. (2019). „The writs of assistance case“ na pozadí bouřlivé dekády 1761–1770 v
anglických koloniích severní Ameriky. Pr'Vn(Historick+ Studie, 2019(1), 77–89.
https://doi.org/10.14712/2464689x.2019.5
Snyder, T. J. (2020). MY CAR IS MY CASTLE: THE FAILED HISTORICAL ROOTS OF
THE VEHICLE EXCEPTION TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. Southern California
Law Review, 93(5), 987–1037. https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=4&sid=437900b7-5076-4f7a-b2f3-9b4f3091be94%40redis
Vitiello, E., Roskam, K., & Swanson, J. W. (2023). Balancing the Roles of Clinicians and Police
in Separating Firearms from People in a Dangerous Mental Health Crisis: Legal Rules,
Policy Tools, and Ethical Considerations. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 51(1), 93–
103. https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2023.44
