The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits warrantless searches or seizures (Currier & Eimermann, 2010). The amendment demands that for a search to be constitutional, it must be authorized by a judge or magistrate. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), this amendment was reaffirmed when the United States’ Supreme Court ruled that before the rights of a citizen under the Fourth Amendment is breached, government authorities must obtain a warrant from a Judge or magistrate who is neutral. Fifteen years ago, drugs found during a warrantless search were not admissible in court. However, today they are. Hemmens, (2010, p. 78) says, “The National Security Agency has a secret backdoor into its vast databases under a legal authority enabling it to search for US citizens’ email and phone calls without a warrant.” It means that there have been fundamental changes in the principle and spirit of the law. In this paper, the researcher seeks to explain these changes and their relevance in the fight against drug trafficking and other criminal activities within the country.
The presumption of innocence till proven guilty as defined in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted from English Common Law and Justinian Codes was integrated into the United States’ Constitution (Currier & Eimermann, 2010). This principle demands that one should be considered innocent until a fair trial in a court of law proves otherwise. As an innocent citizen of this country, the Fourth Amendment protects one from warrantless searches because it infringes one’s right to privacy. This is a golden principle that has been held for several years. However, Hemmens (2010) says that some unscrupulous citizens have been abusing this right by engaging in criminal activities such as drug or human trafficking and organizing terror activities among others. The events following the September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda Attack in the United States changed the principle of this law. It became apparent that people were able to commit crime, because deaths of innocent people, harm many others, and destroy properties worth millions or even billions of dollars.
Currently, drugs which are found during a warrantless search are admissible in court (Currier & Eimermann, 2010). It has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that there are cases when the officers cannot afford to obtain a warranty and still be able to make an arrest. For instance, if officers are convinced that an individual is ferrying drugs in a van, plane, or sea vessels, it is not reasonable possible to go get the warrant from the magistrate or judge because by the time the warrant is issued, the criminal will be gone. That is why it is now illegal for the officers to conduct a warrantless search if they are convinced that any time wastage would jeopardize their ability to succeed in making an arrest. In California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that the police may search automobiles for contraband goods or evidence (Hemmens, 2010).
References
Currier, K. A., & Eimermann, T. E. (2010). Introduction to paralegal studies: A critical thinking approach. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Hemmens, C. (2010). Criminal procedure and the Supreme Court: A guide to the major decisions on search and seizure, privacy, and individual rights. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.