The 4th Amendment protects the privacy of every American from unreasonable and unexplainable government intrusion. FindLaw (2015) asserts that homes should, therefore, grant their owners’ the ultimate privacy as dictated by law. The description of a home would include apartments, mobile shelters, condos, mansions, motels, and tents among others. Therefore, the police would require search and arrest warrants as well as owner consent before making home entries. This essay discusses the 4th Amendment given a series of responses as follows.
The following is an explanation of how the Amendment applies to police entry onto private property. Based on the above introduction, it limits the number of ways that the police can justify entry as part of the arrest and investigation process. Home entries made without probable cause could present instances of civil liability and evidence of suppression. Thus, the U.S Supreme Court conducts periodic reviews on such justifications from time to time. They keep in mind that the amendment releases the police from the procedural entries if they are on a rescue mission, in pursuit of a dangerous suspect, when acting for public safety, preventing detainee escapes, preventing substantial property damage, as well as on routine parole visit (Rutledge, 2014).
The Legal Information Institute (LII) asserts that a search remains illegal and unreasonable in the absence of a valid warrant, except for a few instances. Thus, officers need to stick to the following procedure to obtain a valid warrant. First, they require the presence of legal authority, usually judges and magistrates, for permission. These officials consider the circumstances and legality upon which the justice system would justify search procedures (LII, 2015).
Second, the officers must then show the existence of probable cause to justify their intended actions. They could support this information through affidavits and descriptions of the places and items they intend to conduct search and seize exercises, respectively. Note that the officers may not show that the suspects committed any crime related to the prevailing investigation. Instead, they need only to reveal probable cause regarding the presence of the sought-after evidence (LII, 2015).
Finally, the judges would consider the magnitude and urgency of the situation when deciding on warrant issuance. If granted, warrants restrict the process and times that allow officers to conduct their operations. Here, the officers can only search the places and take objects presented within the warrant. However, they can only search beyond the document if the pieces of evidence they seek are on plain view on site (LII, 2015).
Mind that there are instances that allow cops to enter residences without a search warrant. For instance, Mincey v. Arizona (1978) case suggests that they can enter homes without warrants during rescue missions. Such missions, if justifiable, put officers on emergency assistance for the benefit of injured occupants. Second, they can enter homes without warrants if occupants threaten them or are an immediate threat to the public. This exception means that they cannot delay an investigation if doing so would endanger the lives of others (Mincey v. Arizona, 1978).
Third, the officers can do so to prevent the destruction of primary evidence. The requirement here is that the evidence contamination poses a considerable threat to a case given any foreseeable delay. Fourth, officers are free to conduct their operations without a warrant when pursuing dangerous suspects. Such cases include hit and run drivers, terrorists, armed gunmen, and serial killers. Fifth, they can exercise this exception to prevent the escape of arrestees. Here, the justice system directs that suspects have no right to defeat arrest for a crime committed in public by retreating to private spaces (Mincey v. Arizona, 1978).
Sixth, the absence of warrants in the event of a search is justifiable when preventing substantial damage to property. This case happens if they believe that suspects are within private spaces and could commit a property crime resulting in loss and damage. Thus, immediate action helps to prevent and minimize the extent of illegal activities (Find Law, 2015). Finally, they may also conduct searches without warrants during parole and probation routine visits. In this case, they follow the legality that places individuals on parole and probation to impromptu searches. The notion here is that the officers can assess traces of misconduct to reduce the possibilities of repeat offences (Find Law, 2015).
Given the “Who did it” case, here are two instances that explain how the police could have entered Mary Ellis’ home legally without a warrant. Through consent, the 4th Amendment requires that officers use the consent clause to enter homes without warrants. By dialing 911, Mrs. Ellis allowed the officers to come to her home and attend to Clyde Stevens. The call offered them the validity of entry given the voluntary permission of an individual that possessed authority to the home (Mincey v. Arizona, 1978).
In the second instance, the police were at Ellis’ on a rescue mission. They gained access to the home without a warrant to render the required assistance to an injured Clyde Stevens. Their unwarranted entry also aimed at protecting both Ellis and Stevens from imminent danger. Further delays to do so would mean that the lives of both individuals remained in jeopardy (Rutledge, 2014).
Finally, the following three situations explain the extent to which the police could legally collect evidence from Ellis’ home without a warrant. These three situations include common exceptions and include consent, exigent circumstances, and plains view. First, the officers had the permission to perform a search and seize evidence without a warrant if they received consent from Mrs. Ellis. However, Rutledge (2014) suggests that the consent should be voluntary and free as offered by the property occupant (Rutledge, 2014).
Second, the justice system allowed the police to seize evidence from the crime scene if they were on the property legally and the evidence was in plain view. In any case, they were on the property following an invitation from Mrs. Ellis. Therefore, any evidence, like the knife, would qualify as admissible evidence. Third, exigent circumstances allowed officers to collect pieces of evidence they considered threatened by third-party destruction. There could also be other lives at stake given the period that cops take to secure a search warrant (Rutledge, 2014).
In conclusion, this discussion shows the extent to which the 4th Amendment applies to search and seize operations involving private property. In the first instance, one learns that the police must obtain a valid search warrant to make an entry into homes and seize objects viewed as admissible evidence. The absence of this document means that an entry is illegal, and the evidence seized is invalid. However, some of the instances that allow for search and seize in the absence of a warrant include the pursuit of a dangerous suspect, the rule of consent and plain view, and the prevention of serious public crimes among others.
References
Find Law. (2015). "Search and Seizure" and the Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from Criminal Find Law: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/search-and-seizure-and-the-fourth-amendment.html
LII. (2015). Search Warrant . Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant
Mincey v. Arizona. (1978). Mincey v. Arizona, 437 US 385 - Supreme Court 1978. Retrieved from Supreme Court of United States: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4520535824589376380&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
Rutledge, D. (2014, February 10). Constitutional Home Entry. Retrieved from Police Magazine : http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2014/02/constitutional-home-entry.aspx
