Define Search in Criminal Law
With respect to criminal investigations, the police have a number of powers to search people and places without first making an arrest, often referred to as a “stop and search.” The United Kingdom has several different jurisdictions and the powers and procedures for stop and search vary by jurisdiction: the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from inappropriate searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. A search and seizure is considered inappropriate if it is conducted by police without a valid search warrant and is not covered by an exception to the search warrant requirement. Search and seizure issues have become of great importance in the United States, for the authors of the Constitution, which is provided for in the Fourth Amendment, according to which “the right of persons to be safe in their persons, homes, papers and property from improper search and seizure shall not be violated, and arrest warrants must not be issued, but for a probable reason, supported by an oath or affirmation of oath, including a description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be taken. Since then, judicial attention has often focused on what is in fact an inappropriate search and seizure. The unauthorized seizure of physical evidence (such as weapons, drugs, stolen documents and property), the interception of oral communications by wiretap, and issues observed by an unauthorized invasion of privacy are now adopted by the concept of unlawful search and seizure. If a search is conducted with the consent of the person being searched, even if consent may have been given by police deception, the search is considered reasonable. Any search based on a search warrant issued regularly by the judiciary is also considered appropriate. Searches involving a valid arrest and whose scope is deemed reasonable are authorized without a search warrant; A valid arrest is defined either as an arrest based on a duly issued arrest warrant or as an arrest in circumstances where the arresting officer is actually a witness to the commission of the crime or is likely to have reason to believe that the arrested person has committed the crime.
“Stop and frisk” cases are also an exception to ordinary guarantees. A police officer has the right to temporarily arrest a person and conduct a weapons search, provided that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is armed and dangerous. The text of the amendment is short, and most of the law that determines what constitutes an illegal search and seizure is found in court decisions. The brief definitions of the terms “search” and “seizure” were made in United States v. Jacobsen, who said the Fourth Amendment: If evidence is obtained without a valid search warrant and there is no exception to the warrant requirement, the evidence may be subject to the exclusion rule. The exclusion rule prevents the admission to court of illegally obtained evidence. Evidence collected on the basis of illegally obtained evidence (known as the “fruits of the poisonous tree”) is also excluded. If a person does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” that society is willing to recognize in a particular property, any government interference in that property will not be considered a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, and an arrest warrant is never required. For example, the courts have found that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information shared with third parties, such as the letter outside an envelope sent by mail or left to be picked up in an area where others might see him.
While this does not mean that the individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of this envelope, the Court held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize in the contents of garbage left outside the curvature of a home. [9] Some countries have certain provisions in their constitutions that give the public the right to be free from “inappropriate search and seizure.” This right is generally based on the premise that everyone has a reasonable right to privacy. For example, the owner of the property in question can accept the search. Consent must be voluntary, but there is no clear criteria for determining whether or not this is the case; Rather, a court will consider “all the circumstances” when assessing whether consent was voluntary. Police officers are not technically obliged to inform a suspect that they can refuse, but this policy depends on the specific rules of the department. There are also certain circumstances in which a third party who has the same control, i.e. the common authority, over the property may consent to a search. Another example of inappropriate search and seizure is Mapp v.
Ohio. [8] In corporate and administrative law, the Supreme Court`s interpretation has shifted in favour of a stronger government in terms of investigative power. [19] [20] In Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co.[21], the Supreme Court ruled that, although the FTC was given broad subpoena power, it did not have the right to undertake a general “fishing expedition” in private documents to search for both relevant and irrelevant, hoping that something would emerge. Justice Holmes ruled that this would violate the “spirit and letter” of the Fourth Amendment. The main remedy for illegal searches is called the “exclusion rule”. [18] This means that all evidence obtained through an unlawful search is excluded and cannot be used against the accused at trial. There are a few narrow exceptions to this rule. For example, if police officers acted in good faith — perhaps because of an arrest warrant that was found to be invalid but found by the officers to be valid at the time of the search — evidence may be authorized.
A judge issues a search warrant to authorize law enforcement officers to search a specific location and seize certain items. To obtain a search warrant, police must prove a probable reason why a crime was committed and that crime-related objects are likely to be found at the location specified in the warrant. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution require that any search of a person or his or her premises (including a vehicle) and seizure of tangible evidence be appropriate. Normally, law enforcement agencies are required to obtain a search warrant from a judge indicating where and who they can search and what they can seize, but in an emergency, they can abolish the arrest warrant requirement. Searches and seizures are used in criminal law to describe a person`s investigation of a person`s home, vehicle or business by a law enforcement officer to find evidence that a crime has been committed. During a search, law enforcement officers search all or part of the person`s property and look for specific objects related to a crime they have reason to believe has been committed. A seizure occurs when officers take possession of objects during the search.
protects two types of expectations, one with “searches”, the other with “seizures”. A search takes place when a privacy expectation that society deems appropriate is violated. A confiscation of property occurs when there is a significant interference with a person`s property rights over that property. [6] A police officer may arrest a person for a field interview if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that criminal activity has been, is being carried out or is imminent.