Introduction
The US citizens’ protection quest resulted to the enactment of the Fourth Amendment to the US constitution. The amendment was purposely brought to congress by James Madison on the grounds that the, the US people have the right of security in their houses, papers, persons and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches. This generally protected what could be reasonably considered to be private as in accordance with the law and the expectations of the US citizens (The Bill of Rights and Beyond,). The Amendment further provides that any warrant for conducting search and seizure citizens must be sanction and backed by a probable clause. The Amendment originated as a response to the writ of assistance abuse that was impacted by the British government which resulted to be pre-Revolutionary tension to Americans. The Amendment was ratified in December 15, 1791 and on March 1, 1792 it was adopted into law.
The Fourth Amendment case law takes into scope three questions; ‘what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed’ (Cuddihy 86). At the beginning, the scope of the Fourth Amendment was being limited to the physical intrusion onto property owned privately by law enforcing personnel. However, the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Katz v. US, it was ruled that the law enforcement officers who are sworn in under the Fourth Amendment provision are required to obtain a search and seizure warrant in order carry on such activities. The Supreme Court further defined some limits to the performance of search and seizure activities by law enforcement officers. The exceptions include, evidence in plain view, boarder searches, motor vehicle searches, consent searches, exigent circumstances and others.
The execution of the Fourth Amendment was established under the ruling of the Weeks v.US in 1914 under what is currently known as the exclusionary rule. The rule bases its grounds on the evidence obtained through the violation of the Fourth Amendment. The rule holds that this evidence is inadmissible at criminal case trials (Vile 191). The evidence that can be discovered on a later search as to be a basis of illegal search is also inadmissible unless its justification was obtained by legal means. The evidence inadmissibility is concluded under the metaphor Fruit of the poisonous tree which describes evidenced discovered illegally. The logic behind this inadmissibility is on that if the source of the evidence is tainted, then it follows that the evidence itself is also tainted and cannot be justified to hold against anyone (Franklin 128). For instance if a law enforcement personnel performs a search that limits have been laid by the Fourth Amendment say motor vehicle search and on the process he obtains evidence of a crime in the car dashboard, such evidence has legal grounding for being dropped under the legal doctrine of poisonous tree.
The warrant requirement
A law enforcement officer is required to obtain a warrant to perform a search or seizure on the property of a suspect. This seeks to ensure legality of the act. The law officer is required also to show a probable clause supported by affirmation or an oath in addition to specificity on the extent to which the officer will invade the privacy of the suspect (Stevens 87).
Exceptions to the warrant requirement
There are limits to the warrant. One of them is the plain view doctrine. A seizure of evidence under this doctrine does not negotiate expectation of supplementary seclusion if the law enforcement officer obtains ownership of belongings that was not in the warrant but was in plain view of the law enforcement officer (Slobogin 102). This then will serve to be a rationale under the plain view doctrine.
If a suspect is placed under arrest his property is subject to search or seizure. This is extended to a mistakenly arrest of a wrong suspect in good faith by the law personnel and may be at the course of the search property is placed under seizure. At times the law permits the police to perform searches and seizure under exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances make warrant requirement unreasonable and impractical (LaFave 98). This situation as per the Fourth Amendment exist when there is need for performance of an official duty encompassing enforcement of law but the officer finds no time to obtain a warrant.
A search may not violate the Fourth Amendment provisions if an officer receives consent to make a search without a warrant. However, it is a requirement that the consent must be intelligently, specifically and equivocally given, this generally means that the consent must be volunteered (Stack 78). A third party can also volunteer consent for premises search if he or she confirms to own or reside in the premises legally. Employees are also provided by law legal grounds to give consent for a search on areas within his or her residence excluding the area of place of business assigned to the employee (Bible 52). A landlord is excluded from giving consent on leased premises.
The Fourth Amendment applies to public schools staff and faculties are treated by law as agents of the government. However, this application has less stringent standards. Employees in a School may perform searches on a condition of reasonable suspicion (Zane 34). The Fourth Amendment of the US constitution is a protectionist for privacy of its citizens.
Works Cited
The Bill of Rights and Beyond, 1791-1991. Washington, D.C.: Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 1991. Print.
Bible, Jon D. Employee Urine Teasting and Fourth Amendment. Labor law Journal, 1987.
Cuddihy, William J. The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning, 602-1791. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Franklin, Paula A. The Fourth Amendment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Silver Burdett Press, 1991. Print.
LaFave, Wayne R. Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West, 2004. Print.
Slobogin, Christopher. Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Print.
Stack, Rebecca A. Airport Drug Searches: Giving Content to the Concept of Free and Voluntary Consent. Virginia Law Review, 1991.
Stevens, Leonard A. Trespass!: The People's Privacy Vs. the Power of the Police : Great Constitutional Issues, the Fourth Amendment. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1977. Print.
Vile, John R, and David L. Hudson. Encyclopedia of the Fourth Amendment. Thousand Oaks, Calif: CQ Press, 2013. Print.
Zane, Dale Edward F.T. School Searches Under the Fourth Amendment: New Jersey v. T.L.O. Cornell Law Review, 1987.
