Privacy, search, seizure, arrest and reasonableness are terms that are related and commonly used in the criminal justice system as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned. Words such as “Stop and Frisk” have very central connotations but spurs lots of questions. Automobile search regulations can be challenging to police officers or attorneys. Not just the searches on vehicles that have created many questions, but any actions carried out by the police encroach the privacy and discretion of innocent citizens. Border and regulatory searches have vast legality whenever illegal elements are revealed (Bradford & Loader, 2016; Delsol, 2015) . This paper is going to analyze how police should implement the laws sometimes when they are in their course of duty when in your home, walking on the street, or driving in a car .
The right to privacy is a vital human right that has been clearly stated by the Constitution of the United States. Individuals have significant protections against unreasonable search and seizure in their homes, and other places (Andreae, 2018) . However, the rights are compromised when they walk down the street and are nearly eliminated when they are in their cars. The United States’ Constitution has an obligation to protect people from unnecessary and unjustifiable invasion from the police. In the contemporary society, the government officials significantly consider the right to privacy, right to search and seizure during the criminal investigations (Bridges, 2015). Authorities execute a search with a legal documentation known as a warrant. The warrant has a very comprehensive information regarding the things that are to be seized. The warrant also specifies the places that the authorities should search. Conversely, government has the legal potential to seize individuals, property, a vehicle, or other items after determining a probable cause. As a result, legislators have executed legislation that make law enforcement bureaus affect a people’s Fourth Amendment rights only under few circumstances and through specific strategies.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Stop-and-risk occurs in a situation whereby the government officials demonstrate their authority by seizing a vehicle and doing a search. This occurs if there is a justifiable basis as alleged illegal arms trade (Delsol, 2015). The police are not bound to observe the privacy of individual in this scenario. In spite of the rule of law protecting individuals from government intrusion, the federal officials, and the state can reasonably frisk a property, home, and a car to search for stolen items, illegal weaponries, or substantiation of a crime. Nevertheless, police officers have the task to demonstrate that the search is reasonable and justifiable by proving probable cause. If one is seized for fishy behaviors, a police officer can stop and search them (Andreae, 2018) . The officials can stop and frisk individuals driving around for any reason, or by seeing something devious or illegal items inside the car. The official can require that all persons in the vehicle come out for the frisking. In fact, individuals are needed to show their identification. Showing one’s identification is part of the obligations of the police if the individuals. The privacy comes in by understanding that stop and frisk is not a full body search. It is restricted to searching down the person from only their outer clothes. Government officials look for weapons and not things inside their wallets.
Even though the police officers and attorneys had practiced stop and frisk for a long, the Supreme Court assessed the practice under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizures. The Fourth Amendment case law permits a constitutional search and seizure in which a police officer can only do stop and frisk whenever there is a probable cause (Bradford & Loader, 2016) . A stop and frisk used to be done on the grounds of reasonable doubt, a rather reduced standard than probable cause. Contrariwise, automobile search regulations are offered by the U.S Constitution under the Fourth Amendment. Every person has the right to any privacies of his or her items. Thus, the law restricts a police officer to frisk one’s car anytime they feel like (Miller & Alexandrou, 2016) . A government official, therefore, is not permitted legally to frisk every car randomly if they do not have a warrant.
The United States government possesses many territory policies and laws that inhibit illegal actions along its borders. However, the right of privacy that relates to border search is not considered. The rights are compromised at this point because the security of the nation is top priority (Bradford & Loader, 2016) . Consequently, border searches are done without warrants, probable cause of some aspect of suspicion. What matters most when someone enters the country through the borders is the security of the nation. In this way, illegal entry of people, weaponries and other items are prevented.
“ Arrests rely on the conditions of the Fourth Amendment. The courts have been guided by the common law in defending the right of government officials to throw someone into custody without a warrant once they determine a probable cause to suspect that the individual to be arrested has done a crime or a transgression when they are watching (Delsol, 2015).” The probable cause is, definitely, a similar standard needed to be satisfied in the giving of an arrest warrant. Therefore, this must be ensured by circumstances existing before the police officer’s seize, what is found afterwards not sufficient to recognize retroactively justifiable cause. An arrest is qualified if legal authority is used to rob an individual his or her freedom to move. An arrest is generally executed when a warrant was issued. An arrest can be qualified to be one if probable cause and pressing situations are portrayed at the moment of the arrest. Therefore, the citizens will enjoy their freedom as long as they do not interfere with others or are suspicious of doing some illegal activities.
Rights can be compromised when people walk down the street or sometimes are nearly eliminated when they are in their cars. However, automobiles are stopped only when the officers have a reasonable and expressive suspicion that the motorist has gone against the traffic law. The moment the car has been driven to the side of the road, the Fourth Amendment recommends that officer can search the car’s interiors, plus the glove section (Bridges, 2015). Nonetheless, the trunk of the car should not be checked unless the police officer has probable cause to be convinced that it has illegal imports or the instrumentality of criminal activities (Miller & Alexandrou, 2016) . In the same way, a search situation to arrest, the moment a vehicle has been seized according to the law, the things inside may be collected without a warrant, comprising what is inside the trunk.
In conclusion, legislation guiding search and seizure are of fundamental essence to the government’s privacy, security and welfare of its residents. A police must not always do a search, seizure or arrest pursuant to a legally executed warrant. The Supreme Court has determined that police officers who do not access warrant may adhere to the Fourth Amendment so long as it is justifiable or reasonable considering the situations. The exclusions made with the Fourth Amendment’s need for a warrant show the Court’s hesitancy to unduly prevent the job of law enforcement officers. Thus, it is significant for officers to exercise search and seizure on individuals, properties, homes, items and among other things to boost security. The constitution states that any individual will not be denied or divested, but will be protected, which gives the sense of right to privacy. Therefore, the police officers should be mindful of the rights and civil liberties of all persons in the course of their duties. They are free to search people’s homes, or those walking on the street, or driving in a car provided even without a warrant, provided they determine a probable cause.
References
Andreae, L. C. (2018). Self-sustained seizure inhibition. Science Translational Medicine , 10 (452), eaau7381.
Bradford, B., & Loader, I. (2016). Police, crime and order: the case of stop and search. B. Bradford, B. Jauregui, I. Loader & J. Steinberg (red.), The Sage handbook of global policing. Londen: Sage Publications , 241-260.
Bridges, L. (2015). The legal powers and their limits. In Stop and Search (pp. 9-30). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Delsol, R. (2015). Stop and search: The anatomy of a police power . Springer.
Miller, J., & Alexandrou, B. (2016). College of Policing stop and search training experiment: Impact evaluation. Report appendices. Ryton-on-Dunsmore: College of Policing .
