Essay on Warrantless Arrests and Searches
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides legal protection against unreasonable search and seizure conducted by federal government agents and law enforcement officers who are planning to use that evidence in a criminal process. The issue regarding warrantless arrests and searches has been widely discussed in academic literature (Kleiman, 2011). According to researchers, “warrantless arrests are more common than those with a warrant”(Emanuel, 2009, p. 135). However, warrantless searches depend on the availability of one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement to be lawful. Under the U.S. Constitution, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless arrests for minor crimes that require punishment in the form of a fine (Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001)). The Supreme Court decisions regarding the legality of unreasonable arrests and searches are based on the Fourth Amendment (Kleiman, 2011). The probable cause is necessary in order to obtain a warrant from the judge. In other words, a law enforcement officer who is planning to arrest an individual without a warrant must be based on the availability of the probable cause to believe that an individual has been involved in criminal activity. The probable cause forms the basis of legality for arrests, searches and seizures without a warrant.
The major goal of this paper is to discuss the Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement and Justifications for Warrantless Arrests and Searches.
The Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement
The Fourth Amendment is an important constitutional amendment which sets certain standards for search warrant and protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement that governs the search of a crime scene is that “authorities must comply with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (Buckles, 2006, p. 132). Actually, the Fourth Amendment Warrant can be applied to search or seizure under some particular circumstances. Based on the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court expresses a preference for searches and seizures made pursuant to a legally executed warrant. In fact, the term “search warrant” can be defined as a legal written order signed by the court officials to authorize a law-enforcement officer or government agent to conduct a search or seizure (Buckles, 2006). In other words, a search warrant authorizes to conduct a search for a person (or persons) suspected of a crime. According to the law, searches and seizures that are performed without a lawful warrant are considered to be unacceptable. At the same time, any evidence that has been seized without a lawful warrant should be suppressed. The court should rule that the search is reasonable under the particular circumstances (Buckles, 2006; Kleiman, 2011).
Moreover, the application for a lawful search warrant to a particular case should be supported by a sworn statement made by a law enforcement officer in the court. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there should be a probable cause for the search or seizure when the circumstances of the case form the basis for an individual to believe that he/she has committed a crime (Kleiman, 2011). The term “probable cause” means some probable reason for having a belief in the fact that an individual has committed a crime. The probable cause of the search or seizure should be established by out-of-court statements, which are made by police informants, although the magistrate cannot properly test these statements.
However, the probable cause of the search or seizure cannot be regarded as a lie in case the only evidence of criminal activity is the affirmation of suspicion made by law enforcement officer. The case Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) is an example of this statement. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “although an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed was credible and his information reliable” (Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)). On the other hand, the reason to make an arrest or conduct a search is not the same crime identified by the facts, as it was described in the case Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004). In this case, the Fourth Amendment does not demand to establish the probable cause for the arrest based on the same conduct as the crime identified by the law enforcement officer during the initial encounter.
Justifications for Warrantless Arrests and Searches
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has a preference for searches and seizures conducted under a warrant, there is much evidence that not all searches and seizures can be included in this category. According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions, the fundamental constitutional rule applied to this issue is that if searches and seizures are conducted without a warrant or the approval of the judge, under the Fourth Amendment, these legal actions are considered to be unreasonable. Nevertheless, many arrests and searches are justified and can be conducted without a warrant. Today it is necessary to classify many exceptions to the search and seizure warrant requirements (Lippman, 2010).
In the case United States v. Watson, the U.S. Supreme Courted ruled that some circumstances can affects the court decision regarding the legality of the warrantless arrests and searches. According to researchers, “warrants may slow the enforcement of the law”(Lippman, 2010, p. 150). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was legal. Under some circumstances, warrants arrests based on probable cause are “consistent with the historic practice of the common law as well as with state statutes and state constitutions and therefore under the Fourth Amendment” (Lippman, 2010, p. 150). In other words, the warrantless arrest of individuals is permissible when the law enforcement officers obtained a warrant.
In general, in order to be lawful under the Fourth Amendment, a search, seizure or arrest conducted by law enforcement officers should be based on some probable cause. Justifications for warrantless arrests and searches depend on the availability of the probable cause. According to Peter J. Gordon (1978), “a warrant is never required to make either an arrest or a search when exigent circumstances exist”(p.1550). There are three important cases that illustrate various aspects of the ability of law enforcement officers and government agents to conduct arrests without a warrant. These cases include United States v. Watson (1976), United States v. Santana (1976) and Payton v. New York (1980). In the case United States v. Watson (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to give postal inspectors the right to perform warrantless searches and arrests based on probable cause, even if they have to arrest someone in public. In the case United States v. Santana (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless arrest inside a house was constitutional. The law enforcement officers had enough evidence used to produce the probable cause to believe that the crime was committed by Santana. In the case Payton v. New York (1980), the Court found that the police entry was unconstitutional and “beyond the scope of the police’s right to make warrantless arrests” (Emanuel, 2009, p. 77). The police entered the house when there was no one inside it. They broke the door in order to find evidence for Payton’s conviction. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police officers have the right to stop suspicious individuals in the street in order to search them for weapons (Buckles, 2006; Emanuel, 2009). The case of Terry v. Ohio (1968) is a good example of this practice. In this case, special attention was paid to the availability of the probable cause to stop individuals in the street.
Nevertheless, there is justification for warrantless searches at the time of an individual’s arrest. There are three fundamental reasons for warrantless searches during the arrest: the chance to identify if the person is concealing weapons, the need to prevent the escape of the person during the arrest procedure and the need to prevent the destruction of important evidence (Lippman, 2010).
Conclusion
Thus, it is necessary to conclude that search warrants help to protect the privacy of citizens by demanding authorities to prove the need for the search or seizure of an individual’s property under particular circumstances. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a good example of legislation that can be used to prevent unreasonable search or seizure. Nevertheless, there is justification for warrantless arrests and searches which is defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. The major goal of the police officers who are allowed to conduct warrantless searches and seizures is to preserve evidence. Besides, warrantless searches are justified during arrests.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...