When the United States was founded, there was an inherent fear in the founding fathers of search and seizure that was not ethical by the government as a result of remembering the British monarchy. This fear is precisely why one of the first amendments in the United States Constitution is discussing search and seizure laws for the United States. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution essentially grants citizens protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. This paper will explore how the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution relates to search and arrest warrants and how those arrest warrants require probable cause.
In order to understand the Fourth Amendment with clarity, we must analyze the meaning as derived from the original text. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be search, and the persons of things to be seized, (4th Amendment to the United States Constitution). In delving into the meaning of this text more closely, we see that the Fourth Amendment essentially protects individuals against searches and seizures that are unreasonable. The key terminology is unreasonable because it refers to the reasonable person standard that is assessed to many practicable standards of United States Law, (FindLaw).
What the term unreasonable refers to is searches and seizures that fall outside a certain standard of parameters that are deemed necessary when solving a crime. As the standard of reasonableness has evolved over the centuries pertaining to searches and seizures, it is now codified in modern law to include when: 1) a judge issues a search warrant based on probable cause or 2) certain situations occur that justify a search without a warrant, (FindLaw). When applying this standard, it is important to note that the Fourth Amendment does not apply when the individual did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy, (FindLaw). As codified by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court issues a two-prong test in order to ascertain whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure, (FindLaw). The test is as follows: 1) Did the person subjectively expect the place or thing to be private? 2) Was the expectation objectively reasonable? (FindLaw). In applying this test, it will be decided whether the Fourth Amendment does in fact apply and whether probable cause for the search and seizure should be questioned.
Probable Cause is one of the most important aspects to search and seizure law because the Fourth Amendment specifically protects as to whether law enforcement can enter into a dwelling in order to prove that a crime was committed with evidence that is seized legally. Probable Cause essentially refers to when police in criminal law have adequate reason to conduct a search or seizure of property, (FindLaw). Probable Cause can also pertain to when police are allowed to arrest an individual; however, that is less relevant to our discussion of search and seizure law. To put the definition bluntly, “probable cause exists when facts or circumstances known to the officers provide a basis for a reasonable person to believe that a crime was committed at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime exists in that location,” (FindLaw). Once this standard is met, a search warrant must be issued by the court that specify the place to be search as well as any and all items that prospectively could be seized, (FindLaw). If this is violated in any shape or form, the evidence seized within these searches can be thrown out when the case goes to trial.
An example of search and seizure in the recent media can be seen from the Letroy Guion case in Florida. Letroy Guion was arrested for drug charges on February 3, 2016, (Robbins, L.). There was a debate as to whether the police had probable cause to seize Guion’s property? (Robbins, L.). A judge held that there was in fact probable cause because he believed that Guion’s assets of $200,000 and his car were linked to drug money, (Robbins, L.). The reason that this was allowed was that under Florida law, if your assets are believed to be connect to a specific crime, law enforcement agents have the right to take your property, (Robbins, L.). After the property is seized, a judge has the right to decide whether the seizure was proper, (Robbins, L.).
While many view this law to allow policing of assets, it demonstrates the need for probable cause when conducting searches and seizures of one’s assets. The judge had to ascertain whether there was probable cause, meaning whether the assets were connected to the money made from drug profits. In this case, the judge thought there was a sufficient link to denote probable cause; however, in many cases, judges strictly hold that there is not a sufficient link of probable cause to warrant a search or a seizure.
Search and seizure law within the United States is an area of law that is religiously protected by the courts and law enforcement. Although there is always room for corruption, probable cause is usually strictly enforced by the courts when examining evidence that is connected to crimes that are being tried. If there is any glimmer of doubt that the evidence was obtained illegally, the evidence is typically thrown out. This is a concept that is engrained in United States jurisprudence given our roots of not having fair trials and the extreme death penalties that resulted in Great Britain.
References
Find Law. Search Warrant Requirements. Retrieved from: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/search-warrant-requirements.html/.
Robbins, L. Judge Rules Probable Cause for Police to Seize $200k from NFL Player. FCN. Retrieved from: http://legacy.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/2015/02/23/probable-cause-found-in-civil-forfeiture-case-involving-nfl-star/23872591/.
