The Fourth Amendment to the U.S constitution protects the citizens from arbitrary searches and seizure of private property. This ensures that the right to privacy of an individual is protected against such unreasonable searches and seizures that are conducted by state officials. The general rule under this provision is the requirement of a valid search warrant to conduct any search. The task to interpret the Fourth Amendment so as to warrant what constitutes an unlawful search and seizure is found in different decisions of the Supreme Court. Such a task was evident in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) where the court unanimously ruled that the seizure of property from a private residence without a valid warranty violated the provision of the Fourth Amendment (Dempsey and Forst 27). It further argued that presenting the seized property in court as evidence contravened the exclusionary rule that barred admission of unlawful obtained evidence in any federal court. The decision of this case regarding the exclusionary rule was relied upon in a subsequent case of Mapp v. Ohio, 387 U.S 643 (1961) in which the court held that evidence obtained in contravention of the Fourth Amendment was not admissible in court.
However, there are exceptions to the search warrant rule that have been developed by the courts in a number of cases (Bloom 106). These exceptions depend on certain conditions that the court permits allowable searches. One such condition falls under the category of the plain view doctrine. This doctrine allows an officer to seize any item that he comes across during a lawful observation. However the proviso to this rule requires the officer to have a probable cause to believe that the item seized is evidence to a crime. This doctrine was tested in Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S 321 (1987) in which the court ruled that the officer contravened the Fourth Amendment as he lacked probable cause to seize the property in plain view. The onus of proof therefore lies with the officer. Another condition that allows unwarranted searches is the open field doctrine which allows the officers to search outdoor areas without amounting to trespass. The courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not protect privacy in open fields or outdoor areas. Exigent circumstances also allows for unwarranted searches. This is a condition where the officer believes that there is an emergency that is bound to endanger the lives of others. The court is faced with the task to analyze the extent of emergency eminent in such circumstances. This was evidenced in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S 385 (1978). The motor vehicle exception allows the state officer to carry out a search without possessing a warrant. Most court rulings argue that motor vehicles are not accorded the same protection as private dwellings. The court also argue that the property searched in the vehicle do not necessarily require to belong to the motor vehicle’s owner. That was the legal rationale that was applied in Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S 295 (1999). However, several recent decisions regarding the right to search automobiles seem to have changed their initial focus. In Arizona v. Grant, 556 U.S 332 (2009), the court held that the officer conducting the search erred in searching the motor vehicle after arresting the owner. In such circumstances, the court argues that the officer requires a search warrant. Other conditions that permits allowable search includes searches that are incident to a lawful arrest, border search exceptions and searches in areas such as schools, prisons or a crime scene.
It is therefore evident that the right to privacy is protected in the Fourth Amendment. The court’s broad interpretation of the Weeks case varies from case-to-case basis but with the common goal of protecting the individuals against unreasonable searches and seizure. The officers therefore need to obtain a legal search warrant in order to conduct a search or seize an item.
Works Cited
Bloom, Robert. Searches, seizures and warrants: a reference guide to the United States Constitution. New York: Praeger Publishers, 2003. Print.
Dempsey, John and Forst, Linda. An introduction to policing. New York: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.