What Is Unlawful Search and Seizure?

The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor
Oct 20, 2015
3 min read

In the United States, the US Constitution's 4th Amendment provides protection for US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.

The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution helps protect all citizens against unreasonable search and seizure of property by the government, police, or any other law enforcement agency. The most practical and common application of this amendment is that authorities must obtain a warrant, or have probable cause for an arrest based on items that are permitted by law to be examined or confiscated by authorities. In short, it is due to the amendment against unlawful search and seizure that police or government officials are not allowed to demand access to search your home, office, car, or person at will. This ideal has always been a cornerstone of a free and democratic society, as many other types of governments have not given these rights to citizens. In some countries, people can still be detained and searched at will, and may end up being imprisoned or executed as a result of one person's authority being exercised over another. After observing the ill-effects of citizens not having rights against unlawful search and seizure, England began fighting for the right of private domain in 1604. It was ruled that the king did not have dominion over homes of private citizens, although when necessary, orders could be given that searches be conducted by government officials. It wasn't until the 1760's when Great Britain truly formalized the process in hopes of ending corruption and abuses of power. By that point in time, the idea of a written piece of paper authorizing search and seizure, called a general warrant, was an accepted practice. However, general warrants meant that virtually anything could be searched and seized, even if beyond the scope of an investigation. Great Britain began to make strides toward a more fair and just system in 1765, with the high-profile case Entick vs. Carrington ending in a ruling that limited the scope of what could be searched and taken in a criminal investigation. In Colonial America, the idea of general warrants were being vetoed entirely, and although a long debate ensued over the exact definition and application of the Fourth Amendment, it was largely agreed upon that the privacy of a citizen superseded the possibility that evidence could be lost by narrowing the scope of warrants. The idea of probable cause, and warrants specifying what could be searched and which items could be seized, took root in the American criminal justice system. Although the exact allowances and limitations set by the Fourth Amendment have been challenged numerous times over the centuries, the fundamental right given to all Americans has fundamentally remained the same. Today, evidence that is not collected within the scope of a warrant and is not in plain sight is not usable in any criminal proceedings. In addition, police officers who do not follow the spirit of the Fourth Amendment are not only responsible for the dismissal of charges against a suspect, but face sanctions for their behavior. It is largely due to the laws against unreasonable search and seizure that all Americans are afforded a reasonable right to privacy and there is no threat of tyranny on the part of a police force, government, or military. This amendment has remained a cornerstone of freedom and democracy for nearly three centuries. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: David Cantor David Cantor is a Certified Criminal Law Specialist who practices criminal defense in Phoenix, AZ. Copyright The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor - Google+ More information about The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.