Preface
Since I wanted to be released from the tyranny practices of the British monarchy in the 1700s, the United States was founded. Under British colonial rule, Americans often have land and personal ownership designated by civil servants without caution.
As a result, founder of the United States was very interested in protecting property from unjust invasion by government officials. This emphasis on privacy is reflected in Article 4 amendment of the US Constitution which prevents citizens' "unfair search and foreclosure" by state or federal authorities. Protection of search and seizure by revision of Article 4 is generally quite wide. Historically, it may be restricted under certain circumstances, but it works quite well. In this article, we explain the basic background about the scope of the fourth amendment clause.
* For your information, the body of the fourth revised charter we are discussing is as follows:
The rights of people, houses, documents, and affected people are not violated against unfair searches and seizure. Also, Worland will not issue it, but it will include places to be searched that are supported by vows and oaths, people to be sorted, and so on.
Staged process of protection
First of all, the fourth revision proposal protects only against unfair search and seizure conducted Government officials It is either state or federal. This means that only state actors such as police officers may violate your fourth revision right.
For example, if there is a doubt that security guards shoplifted and searched bags in the store, you can not bring a lawsuit in a court that claims that unreasonable searches were done. The fourth amendment is aimed only to protect citizens against the acts of the government and its representatives.
Secondly, people are " Unreasonable If the government determines that the search is reasonable, it means that there is a possibility of conducting a search without infringing the constitutional rights.
To determine whether a search is reasonable, you must meet the following requirements by state:
- The police are more likely to believe that they can discover the evidence of crimes owned by people.
- A warrant was issued by a neutral and dismissed judge. Egypt
- Where a warrant has not been issued, its search is justified by circumstances (eg if they are pursuing enthusiastically, or there is a risk that the evidence will be destroyed).
Here the possible cause is that the police have sufficient knowledge that the person possesses guilty evidence. Knowledge must be based not only on speculation but also on important facts. Also, the warrant shall describe exactly where to search and / or items to specify. If any of these requirements are not met, the search is considered "irrational".
More steps - "Legitimate privacy expectations"
Whether the search is considered reasonable or not depends on the " Expectation of legitimate privacy Without a warrant, the police may not conduct a search in places where people are expecting legitimate privacy.
The expectation of privacy is determined by two things. That is, whether the person himself has privacy expectations for that item. Whether to recognize objective criteria, that is, society generally expects privacy.
Although this is a specific vague standard, the court is expecting privacy in the following situation.
- I own the place where that person is being searched
- That person lives in the location searched (regardless of whether they own the location)
- That person is a guest overnight in the place where they are being searched.
Under these circumstances, the person expects legitimate privacy, and the police need a valid warrant to search these fields. Items and places that courts do Absent We assume privacy expectations:
- Public area / item
- A sample of one handwriting or a sample of his voice
- Bank account record
- Destination / arrival of vehicle on public road
- Car painted samples (police can clip a small piece of paint from your car and submit for analysis without a warrant)
- Garbage remaining on the curve side for collection
- One land area visible during flight
- Curation (non-premises surrounding a single land, open field)
Therefore, in all these cases, people do not have legitimate privacy expectations and the police are likely to be searched without a warrant as long as there is such a reason.
Interest in cars and privacy Housing: "Exception of car"
Today, there are a lot of automobile advertisements claiming that their newest car model is more like home than car. However, in search and attachment setting, car privacy concerns are fundamentally different from home. Due to the mobility of the car, the court has determined that the expectation of car privacy is much lower than at home.
Generally, if a car falls actively, the police may search for a car without a warrant. This is known as "car exception" against warrant requirements.
The police may pull the car at first for different reasons than searching. For example, they might pull someone for a broken taillight, then search for smuggled goods by car. But keep in mind that they still have to possibly have a reason to believe that the car has the evidence to do the search. If they have a possible cause, they may search the entire car as well as all the containers in the car.
The expectation of a decline in the privacy of a car is dramatically summarized by what is known as "Ramamy's rule". Never put anything you do not want the police in your car to show.
Violation of the fourth amendment: exclusion rules and "fruit of poison" doctrine
In case of an unfair search, the case of the Supreme Court provides a remedy for that person. Normally, remedial measures of violation consists of eliminating specified evidence (although not completely dismissed). Two legal principles dealing with search and foreclosure illegal acts are the doctrine of exclusion rules and "poison fruit".
Exclusion rule
The Supreme Court ruled that items designated as a result of unreasonable searches can not be used as evidence against the defender. This rule was established primarily as a preventive measure against the police who violated the search and foreclosure rules. For example, if a policeman did not guarantee a valid warrant before the search, the evidence would have been excluded under this rule. However, evidence seized illegally may be used for other purposes in the court, such as impeaching the witness's credibility.
"Poison tree nut" doctrine
After the Supreme Court enacted the exclusion rules, the doctrine of "fruit of toxic trees" was born further. This theory states that the evidence obtained from illegal searches may not be used to gain other evidence.
As an example, let's say the police are trying to arrest a buyer. In their survey we assume that we illegally searched for a man's house without a warrant and obtained a paper containing a list of names of drug buyers known to the area. Since the list has been acquired illegally, you can not contact the name stated in the thesis.
Here, "tree" is a paper with a list of names. "Tree tree fruit" is further evidence gathered as a result of contacting people listed. "Tree" is "poisonous" (illegal), so fruits will not be accepted either.
Things to keep in mind
In summary, this is the mechanism of search and foreclosure legislation. First of all, everyone expects legitimate privacy at specific places and items. If a law enforcement officer wants to search for such a region, you need to obtain a warrant or conduct a search based on a search without a valid warrant. In such a case, the court will assess the privacy interests of the individual against the interests of the search country to determine whether the investigation is unreasonable. If the search is made illegally, you need to exclude evidence and illegally search all outcomes.
If you feel that you are receiving unreasonable searches and seizures, there are some questions to keep in mind:
- Did investigation by government representatives be done?
- Has the person expected the right privacy in items and places?
- Has the police investigated according to an appropriate warrant supported by a possible cause? If not, was it a search without a valid warrant?
If an unreasonable search is made, there is a possibility that it will have a big influence on the result of the criminal procedure.
EmoticonEmoticon