The Fourth Amendment holds that people have a constitutional right to be secured in their premises, persons, effects, papers, and houses against unwarranted searches and seizures ( Bacigal, 2009 ). In this case, Brown has a right to claim a standing and object to the seized property, which the police intend to use as evidence against him. The items that were found in his home include heroin and counterfeit money from Smith for the purchase of the merchandise. He may object to the seizure of both the heroine and the counterfeit money because it was obtained through an unconstitutional search. The police did not have any probable cause or legal warrant to search his home, and as such, anything they have retrieved should not be used for prosecution in court ( Hall, 2015 ). Brown should claim that be that the property was seized illegally without a legal warrant, and as such, his rights were violated.
Regarding the disposition of the seized property, the constitution clearly states that any property taken from an accused by an unlawful search and seizure shall be returned if the accused is lawfully entitled to have possession of such property ( Bacigal, 2009 ). From this clause, it is imperative to note that there is jurisdiction over the items that can be claimed for return by a victim of unconstitutional search and seizure. Whereas Brown will have a right to object to the seizure, he will not be able to claim them back because, legally, the possession of heroine and counterfeit money is prohibited.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Bacigal, R. J. (2009). Criminal law and procedure: An overview . Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.
Hall, D. (2015). Criminal law and procedure . Stamford: Cengage Learning.
