Introduction
The United States was founded because people wanted to break free from the oppressive practices of the British monarchy in the 18th century. Under British colonial rule, Americans were often subject to having their land and personal property confiscated by government officials without notice.
As a result, America’s founding fathers were keen to protect their property from unwarranted intrusion by government officials. This emphasis on privacy is reflected in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects citizens from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by state or federal officials. The protection against search and seizure under the 4th Amendment is generally quite broad. Historically it has worked quite well, although it can be limited in certain circumstances. This article provides basic background on the scope of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from search and seizure *.
* For your reference, the text of the Fourth Amendment that we are discussing reads:
The right of people to be safe in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, will not be violated, and arrest warrants will not be issued, but with probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and in particular describing the place to be searched and the people or things to be seized.
Step-by-step process of protections
For starters, the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures that take place by government officials, either state or federal. This means that only a state actor like a police officer can violate your Fourth Amendment rights.
For example, if a private security guard suspects you are shoplifting and searches your purse, you cannot sue him in court on the grounds that an unreasonable search occurred. The Fourth Amendment only aims to protect citizens against the acts of the government and its representatives.
Second, a person has the right to be free only from “unreasonable“Searches and seizures. This means that if the government concludes that the search is reasonable, then they can conduct a search without violating your constitutional rights.
To determine whether a search is reasonable, the state must meet the following requirements:
- the police have probable cause to believe that they may discover evidence of a crime in the possession of a person and
- a court order has been issued by a neutral and impartial judge; gold
- if a court order has not been issued, the search is warranted by the surrounding circumstances (for example, if they are in persecution or if the evidence is in danger of being destroyed).
Here, probable cause means that the police have sufficient knowledge that the person is in possession of incriminating evidence. Knowledge must be based on material facts and not just suspicions. In addition, the warrant must accurately describe the location to be searched and / or the item to be seized. If any of these requirements are not met, the search is considered “unreasonable”.
More Steps: “Legitimate Expectation of Privacy”
Whether a search is considered reasonable also depends on what is called “legitimate expectation of privacy“Without a warrant, the police cannot search places where people have a legitimate expectation of privacy.
The expectation of privacy is determined by two things: if the person himself has an expectation of privacy in the article; and an objective standard, that is, whether society in general would recognize that there is an expectation of privacy.
This is a somewhat vague standard, but the courts have assumed an expectation of privacy in the following circumstances:
- The person owns the place they are looking for
- The person lives in the place sought (whether or not he owns the place)
- The person is a guest who spends the night in the place they are looking for.
In these circumstances, it is assumed that the person has a legitimate expectation of privacy and the police need a valid warrant to search these areas. no suppose a privacy expectation is:
- Public areas / items
- Samples of handwriting or the sound of one’s own voice or
- Bank account records
- Destination / arrival of the vehicle on public roads
- Paint samples from a car (police can remove small patches of paint from your car and send them for analysis, without a warrant)
- Garbage left on the sidewalk to collect
- Areas of one’s own land visible to the naked eye during a flyover
- Curtilage (the unfenced area surrounding one’s land, i.e. open fields)
Therefore, in all these cases, people do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy and can be searched without a warrant, provided the police have probable cause to do so.
Privacy interest in cars vs. Casas: the “automobile exception”
There are many car advertisements that claim that your latest car model looks more like a house than a vehicle. However, in a search and seizure environment, privacy interests in a car are radically different than in a home. Due to the mobile nature of a car, the courts have ruled that the expectation of privacy in cars is much lower than in homes.
Generally, the police can search a car without a warrant if the car has been validly stopped. This is known as the “automobile exception” to the court order requirement.
Initially, the police may stop the car for a reason other than a search. For example, they can stop someone for a broken taillight and then search the car for contraband. However, keep in mind that they must still have probable cause to believe that the car carries evidence in order to perform the search. If they have probable cause, they can search the entire car, as well as any containers inside the vehicle.
The lower expectation of privacy in cars has been amusingly summed up in what is known as “Reamey’s rule: never put anything in your car that you don’t want the police to see.”
Fourth Amendment Violations: The Rule of Exclusion and the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine
In the event of an unreasonable search, Supreme Court cases have provided avenues of relief for the person. Generally, the remedy for a violation is to exclude the seized evidence (although the case is not completely dismissed). Two legal doctrines that deal with search violations and seizure are the exclusionary rule and the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.
The rule of exclusion
The Supreme Court has ruled that any item seized as a result of an unreasonable search cannot be used as evidence against the accused. This rule was established primarily as a preventive measure against police violating search and seizure rules. For example, if the police officer did not obtain a valid court order prior to the search, the evidence would be excluded under this rule. However, illegally seized evidence can sometimes be used for other purposes in court, for example to challenge the credibility of a witness.
Doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree”
After the Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule, other cases created the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This theory states that evidence obtained from an illegal search cannot be used to obtain other evidence.
To illustrate, let’s say the police seek to arrest drug buyers. In your investigation, suppose they illegally searched a person’s home without a warrant and obtained a document listing the names of known drug buyers in the area. Since the list is obtained illegally, the names on the document may not be contacted.
Here, the “tree” would be the paper with the list of names. “Fruits of the tree” would be any additional evidence collected as a result of contact with the people listed. Since the “tree” is “poisonous” (illegal), the fruits would also be inadmissible.
Things to remember
In short, the way search and seizure law works is this: First, everyone has a legitimate expectation of privacy in certain places and items. If a law enforcement officer wishes to search such areas, they must obtain a warrant or conduct the search pursuant to a valid warrantless search. In such cases, the courts will weigh the privacy interest of the individual against the interest of the state in the search to determine if the search is unreasonable. If the registration was done illegally, they should exclude the evidence and all the fruits of the illegal registration as well.
If you feel you have been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure, some questions to consider include:
- Was the search conducted by a government representative?
- Did the person have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the item or place?
- Did the police conduct the search in accordance with an appropriate court order, supported by probable cause? If not, was it a valid warrantless search?
If an unreasonable search has occurred, it can drastically affect the outcome of criminal proceedings.