The Fourth Amendment enshrines the right of citizens to privacy. Law enforcement officers can turn an investigation into a search and seizure if they prove to a court the offender’s action disputes their privacy expectations (Carthew, 2019). The police have to receive a warrant before entering a property to search. However, they can search and seize items if there is a belief that the suspect will destroy evidence, considering they will act promptly. In case the law enforcement agent is on the property for other legitimate reasons and comes across contraband in plain sight, they have the right to confiscate the same (Carthew, 2019). The police officers conducting searches should constrain themselves to the area outlined in the warrant since failure to do so will be illegality.
The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of evidence collected in contravention of an individual’s privacy rights in a court of law. The legislation was adopted to ensure evidence can be excluded from court proceedings if it was assembled using illegal means by the police officers (Hawkins, 2021). Law enforcement agents must ensure they conduct searches and seizures using legal means and document any measures taken (Hawkins, 2021). For instance, the police need to conduct searches within the area outlined in the warrant.
The Fourth Amendment highlights the inalienable right of people to privacy. The Fourth Amendment outlines that unreasonable searches and seizures should not be conducted on houses, personal effects, and belongings such as vehicles (Hawkins, 2021). Although the police should inform people of the need to search, exceptions can be made if a valid arrest is made, the victim gives consent, and when items are in plain view (Hawkins, 2021). For instance, a search can be done by law enforcement personnel on a car without getting a warrant. Individuals on probations are exempted from the right to privacy, and random searches can be done on their effects.
References
Carthew, A. (2019). Searches and seizures – Fourth Amendment and reasonableness in general: protection of privacy interests in the digital age. North Dakota Law Review, 94(197).
Hawkins, D. (2021). Suppression of evidence – exclusionary rule. Wisconsin Law Journal. Web.