Search, and seizures are addressed under the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution. Law enforcement agents’ unreasonable search and seizure are limited as they violate an individual’s privacy. Lawful search and seizures ought to follow the provisions stipulated by the fourth amendment and other legal provisions. Searches and seizures can be conducted on persons and their property to obtain evidence of an individual’s wrongdoings. The basic requirements determining lawful search and seizures are reasonableness and availability of a warrant. All these types of searches and seizures must be conducted under the provisions of the fourth amendment and in a reasonable manner to ensure law enforcement officers do not violate individuals’ privacy.
It is vital to note that warrants are not always necessary to conduct lawful intrusion of privacy. Law enforcement officers can conduct warrantless seizures are based on the urgent need or probable causes of arrest . A reasonable belief of a suspect's guilt based on the information and facts officers have before arresting a suspect will necessitate the search of a suspect without a warrant. Moreover, if consent is given or evidence is in plain view, officers can conduct warrantless searches. The exclusionary rule is a provision of the judiciary that was implemented to curb police misconduct. The rule leads to the exclusion of evidence acquired using unlawful means by government officers. The rule only applies if certain predetermined principles are met.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Unlawful searches and seizures impact the criminal process and the conviction of felons. The fourth amendment rights protect individuals and ensure agents of law enforcement follow correct procedures for collecting evidence. The case of United States v. Jacobsen shows a good example of a search and seizure case where all elements and requirements were met, thus ensuring the indictment and conviction of felons. Weeks v. United States is believed to be the first unequivocal version of the exclusionary rule. The case shows how the exclusionary rule helps to deter future police misconduct while also highlighting how officers who do not follow search and seizure provisions affect the outcome of cases. Officers should learn from the mistakes of their peers and follow the right procedures when collecting evidence.
