The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is perhaps one of the most frequently litigated constitutional amendments in the courts. In its entirety, the Fourth Amendment states, “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 searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The main purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a right guaranteed to every American citizen. The point of this right is to limit the government from unnecessary intrusions into your rights as a free citizen.
An unreasonable search and seizure issue most often arises when law enforcement searches a car after a traffic stop. The question then becomes whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the car in the first place and/or probable cause to search the vehicle. If the police have seized property obtained through an illegal vehicle search, the seizure of the property is considered unreasonable.
An unreasonable search and seizure can also occur when law enforcement seeks to search a person’s home. In order for a search to be valid, the police must first obtain a warrant, which is supported by probable cause, and describes the place to be searched with particularity. If these requirements are not met, the defendant can petition the court to exclude the evidence at trial. The court will then determine if the police conformed to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when obtaining the warrant and can order that the evidence not be allowed in trial under the exclusionary rule.
If the police search someone’s property without a warrant, the search is considered unreasonable unless exigent circumstances existed at the time of the search. The burden is then placed on the prosecution to prove that the police believed that there was an imminent danger that required an immediate search. Examples of such danger include, gunshots, a person screaming, or fire emanating from inside a building. Courts have also held that destruction of physical evidence can provide the police justification to search property in order to prevent its destruction. If any of these reasons exist then the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement is not violated.
If you believe that you are the victim of an unconstitutional search then it is imperative you contact an attorney.
By: Neil Lemons
Posts Tagged ‘Unreasonable Search And Seizure’
What Constitutes an Unreasonable Search and Seizure?
December 27th, 2009Criminal Law : Your Constitutional Rights
December 15th, 2009Overview
Every saint has a past and every sinner a future. Criminal law takes cognizance of this universal truth and every accused is provided with ample rights while deciding whether he/she has committed any offence. Prosecution guidelines provide for certain procedural niceties to be extended to a person accused of crime. After all, the law intends to punish the crime, not the criminal. Adversarial system views crime as a wrongdoing against the state and not against a particular person. The interests of the state are represented by the prosecuting attorney. As such, law views the offender sympathetically and treats him/her as innocent until proved guilty and passes the burden of proving the case to the prosecution. The defendant has a right to be presumed innocent unless and until the State has proven each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, for instance, if a culpable mental state is required to prove a crime, the prosecution must prove that it existed at the time of commission of the offence.
Constitutional Rights
The United States Constitution guarantees a wide array of rights to the criminal defendant from the time of arrest through the trial proceedings. These include: the right to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure, to remain silent, to be tried before a judge or a jury, to summon witnesses and compel their attendance to testify on behalf of the defendant, and to confront and cross-examine any witness the State may call. The defendant in a criminal case has a right to a speedy trial and to be represented by an attorney and is entitled to have an attorney appointed by the court, if the defendant is unable to afford one. The defendant also has a right to consult an attorney or family members before pleading guilty or not guilty before the court.
The criminal proceedings begin by the initiation of a complaint by the purportedly injured person, the complainant. The police investigate about the complaint. A formal charging document called a complaint or an indictment brought by a grand jury is filed with a court in the proper jurisdiction.
The Right to Speedy Trial
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a speedy and public trial, in both state and federal courts, which means that the proceedings are to be completed within a reasonable time after the person being arrested. The defendant has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Sixth Amendment also guarantees a criminal defendant the right to be tried before an “impartial jury,” which will consider the evidence against the defendant and decide whether to find him/her guilty. In almost all states, the concurrence of twelve jurors is necessary in order to find a defendant “guilty or not guilty.”
Right to be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the defendant the right to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure. The quintessence of the Amendment is that “every man’s house is his castle” and the rights to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause.”
Privilege against Self-incrimination
The defendant is entitled to a right under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to remain silent during the trial. In other words, the accused person can refuse to answer any questions or make any statements, if such answers or statements establish that the person committed a crime or is in any way connected to some criminal activity. As already mentioned above, the burden of proof of a crime is on the prosecution. However, no one including the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s lawyer can force the defendant to be a witness against himself/ herself if the person declines to do so. Furthermore, when a defendant exercises his or her right not to testify, the jury is not permitted to take such denial into consideration when deciding the question of liability. Thus, this is a prominent privilege to the criminal defendant. Nevertheless, the defendant cannot selectively answer questions that go against him/her. Once a defendant decides to testify at trial, he/she cannot ordinarily choose to answer some questions but not others. It is to be noted that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply when a defendant is fingerprinted, or made to provide a DNA sample in connection with a criminal accusation. Like a criminal defendant, witnesses are also entitled to refuse to answer certain questions by asserting their Fifth Amendment rights. However, this right is not extensive as that of the criminal defendants.
Conclusion
A criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent and accorded all humane considerations during the trial. Justice is not a one sided notion favoring the victim, but it looks at the accused person from a reformative angle. The punishments accorded to the criminal defendant are meant to reform the person and not a retributive measure. As such, in the pursuit of justice, law takes in to consideration, the rights of the accused.
Mr. Smith is a renowned Florida criminal defense attorney . The knowledge, experience, and killer instincts J. Layne Smith has honed over years of civil and administrative trials in insurance related cases makes him force when defending white collar crimes. Simply put, prosecutors do not have the background and depth of understanding Mr. Smith has, and he uses that advantage to the fullest extent, for your benefit.
Overview
Every saint has a past and every sinner a future. Criminal law takes cognizance of this universal truth and every accused is provided with ample rights while deciding whether he/she has committed any offence. Prosecution guidelines provide for certain procedural niceties to be extended to a person accused of crime. After all, the law intends to punish the crime, not the criminal. Adversarial system views crime as a wrongdoing against the state and not against a particular person. The interests of the state are represented by the prosecuting attorney. As such, law views the offender sympathetically and treats him/her as innocent until proved guilty and passes the burden of proving the case to the prosecution. The defendant has a right to be presumed innocent unless and until the State has proven each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, for instance, if a culpable mental state is required to prove a crime, the prosecution must prove that it existed at the time of commission of the offence.
Constitutional Rights
The United States Constitution guarantees a wide array of rights to the criminal defendant from the time of arrest through the trial proceedings. These include: the right to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure, to remain silent, to be tried before a judge or a jury, to summon witnesses and compel their attendance to testify on behalf of the defendant, and to confront and cross-examine any witness the State may call. The defendant in a criminal case has a right to a speedy trial and to be represented by an attorney and is entitled to have an attorney appointed by the court, if the defendant is unable to afford one. The defendant also has a right to consult an attorney or family members before pleading guilty or not guilty before the court.
The criminal proceedings begin by the initiation of a complaint by the purportedly injured person, the complainant. The police investigate about the complaint. A formal charging document called a complaint or an indictment brought by a grand jury is filed with a court in the proper jurisdiction.
The Right to Speedy Trial
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a speedy and public trial, in both state and federal courts, which means that the proceedings are to be completed within a reasonable time after the person being arrested. The defendant has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Sixth Amendment also guarantees a criminal defendant the right to be tried before an “impartial jury,” which will consider the evidence against the defendant and decide whether to find him/her guilty. In almost all states, the concurrence of twelve jurors is necessary in order to find a defendant “guilty or not guilty.”
Right to be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the defendant the right to be free from any unreasonable search and seizure. The quintessence of the Amendment is that “every man’s house is his castle” and the rights to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause.”
Privilege against Self-incrimination
The defendant is entitled to a right under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to remain silent during the trial. In other words, the accused person can refuse to answer any questions or make any statements, if such answers or statements establish that the person committed a crime or is in any way connected to some criminal activity. As already mentioned above, the burden of proof of a crime is on the prosecution. However, no one including the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s lawyer can force the defendant to be a witness against himself/ herself if the person declines to do so. Furthermore, when a defendant exercises his or her right not to testify, the jury is not permitted to take such denial into consideration when deciding the question of liability. Thus, this is a prominent privilege to the criminal defendant. Nevertheless, the defendant cannot selectively answer questions that go against him/her. Once a defendant decides to testify at trial, he/she cannot ordinarily choose to answer some questions but not others. It is to be noted that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply when a defendant is fingerprinted, or made to provide a DNA sample in connection with a criminal accusation. Like a criminal defendant, witnesses are also entitled to refuse to answer certain questions by asserting their Fifth Amendment rights. However, this right is not extensive as that of the criminal defendants.
Conclusion
A criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent and accorded all humane considerations during the trial. Justice is not a one sided notion favoring the victim, but it looks at the accused person from a reformative angle. The punishments accorded to the criminal defendant are meant to reform the person and not a retributive measure. As such, in the pursuit of justice, law takes in to consideration, the rights of the accused.
By: Layne Smith
