The United States’ laws for search and seizure of criminal evidence are defined by the fourth amendment of the United States constitution, 1791 (Arbetman & Perry, 1994). The law limits the police powers to arrest, search people and their property, and seizure of objects and contraband (Arbetman & Perry, 1994). However, the fact that the law limits police from unwarranted search, it is worth to note that sometimes the police may be prompted with a situation of urgent criminal occurrence that gives the police automatic search and seizure of suspected objects held by criminals that may pose a great danger to the nation if not put under police custody in time.
The fourth amendment of the United States constitution outlines the key issues regarding the police arrests, search, and seizure. First, the law protects the privacy of the United States’ citizens. With this regard, all citizens have the right to be secure from unwarranted searches. This implies that the police are limited from making unreasonable search of the people, their houses, and their personal effects (Arbetman & Perry, 1994). The law basically guarantees the citizens of security against unreasonable search for both their personal privacy and the privacy of their property, as long as the property is legally acquired. However, the law does not protect citizens against reasonable search and seizure of the property (Arbetman & Perry, 1994). For instance, the police may conduct a search on an individual or a group of people and even seize their property if there is evidence that the persons have committed a crime. Besides, the police or any other law enforcement body may conduct unwarranted search under certain circumstances that may justify the legality of the search (Arbetman & Perry, 1994). This means that unwarranted searches are not totally prohibited.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are exceptions in which the law may not protect an individual from search. For example, the law may not protect a person from search if the person has no privacy issues at the time or point of search (Arbetman & Perry, 1994). Nevertheless, the court has the mandate to define, based on the circumstances, the degree of privacy and establishes if the search conducted on a person was objectively reasonable or not (Arbetman & Perry, 1994). Therefore, in case a person feels that their right to privacy was infringed, they can file a case with the court of law and seek justice. To be able judges to establish the legality of a police search, the United States Supreme Court established the principle of the exclusionary rule in 1961 that helps the courts of law deal effectively with cases regarding unwarranted searches (Arbetman & Perry, 1994). This principle aims at deterring the police from the habit of conducting illegal searches and seizures, and protects the citizens from police interferences of their privacy.
After reading the United States rules for search and seizure of criminal evidence, I have developed various concerns regarding their effectiveness in ensuring justice within the state. I doubt the credibility of the court of law to determine whether the search conducted by the police or any other law enforcement body was justified or not. This is because the police may lay false allegations on the culprit; that he or she was caught in possession of illegal substances or objects (Chapman, 2016). With such, the police may take such illegal substances or objects elsewhere and present to the court alleging that the victim was found in their possession, and the victim may find it difficult to escape such allegations. Furthermore, despite the law stating clearly that police are prohibited from making unreasonable searches, the recent police misconducts indicate how the police misuse their power regarding the Fourth Amendment. For example, a report by Justice Department presented in 2011 found cops in New Orleans conduct stops, searches, and arrests against the requirements of the Fourth Amendment (Chapman, 2016). Therefore, the United States’ laws for search and seizure of criminal evidence have some loopholes and need to be revised to accommodate all critical issues regarding the police search and arrest as defined by the law.
References
Arbetman, L., & Perry, M. (1994). Search and Seizure: The Meaning of the Fourth Amendment Today. (Online). Retrieved from http://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/publications/se/6105/610507.html
Chapman, S. (2016). Unreasonable Police Searches Are Unconstitutional — and Common. (Online). Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/steve-chapman/ct-fourth-amendment-baltimore-police-searches-unconstitutional-perspec-20160812-column.html
