Privacy Doctrine and the Different Kinds of Searches That Have Legal Leg to Stand Up in Court. Free Essay

The privacy doctrine is the Fourth Amendment ratified on 03 November 1791 in the United States Constitution. It states that “every man’s home is his castle.” Also referred to as the third-party doctrine (Schmidt et al., 2020). The United States Constitution comprehends no express right to privacy. For three eras, the right to privacy has served as a constitutional limit on government power. The doctrine of privacy protects specific facets of privacy; 1st amendment privacy of beliefs, 3rd Amendment privacy of the home against demands, 4th Amendment privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches, and 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Whether the Constitution guards privacy in ways not expressly stated in the bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists such as the famous Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated supreme court confirmation hearings have contended that no such general privacy rights exist. Notwithstanding the importance of this doctrine of privacy and its attention, there is little agreement on the most elementary questions of its scope and derivation. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guards citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. It stipulates that people's right to be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, and seizures shall not be desecrated. No warrants shall be issued but on probable cause, supported by affirmation or Oath, and certainly describing the location to be searched, and the persons or property to be apprehended. However, anything that an individual knowingly exposes to the public, regardless of location, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, a person must keep something private for the Fourth Amendment to apply. The Katz stand calls for the following factual inquiry in all Fourth Amendment cases: Did the person claiming the Fourth Amendment protection use privacy in the information she or he argues the law enforcement agencies should not have accessed without a warrant? Was the person's information generally available, and if it was, then the question is whether the government was reasonable in obtaining it without a permit (Schmidt et al., 2020). Back in the days when the "third party" doctrine of the Fourth Amendment was established in the 1970s, it allowed police to question gang members, for example, without needing a warrant. However, over time, the courts extended the exception by consenting to warrantless searches of telephone metadata and banks' financial records (Parker, 2015).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The Reasonable Expectation of privacy is a unit of privacy law that outlines places and in which events a person has a legal right to privacy ("Find Law," 2017). This means someone who unreasonably and seriously compromises another person's interest in keeping his/ her affairs privately from the rest of the other people. That person can be held liable for that exposure or intrusion of privacy ("Find Law," 2017). Justice Harlan was able to create a two-part test where whether the “reasonable expectation of privacy” existed. First and foremost, the individual has to exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy. And the other one is the person must show that his/her subjective expectation of privacy is one in which the society at large will consider reasonable. If the two above requirements have been met. The State government has taken an action that provokes this "expectation, “then the government has gone against the individuals' Fourth Amendment rights. persons have reasonable expectations of privacy in their person, vehicles, houses, and even their business offices. Besides, they have reasonable expectations of confidentiality in day to day private communications through letters, journals, and even phone calls. If an individual needs a password or even a key to enter a personal space, whether electronic or physical, then the Fourth Amendment will apply. An example is safety bank deposit boxes, luggage or computers

In contrast, individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public areas where whatever they do can be seen. Whatever they say can be heard, or whatever they possess can be seen. Examples of public places are sidewalks, stadiums, and even parks. There will be no reasonable expectation of privacy electronically their dialed phone numbers, the Global Positioning System location of a motor vehicle, emails, or social media platforms.

In the case of Riley v. California, the police stopped the defendant David Leone Riley for traffic misconduct that led to him being arrested on weapons charges (Harper, 2007). Riley wanted to conceal all the evidence that the police officers had secured from his mobile phone, saying that the officers were violating his right to the fourth amendment. However, the trial court rejected his plea, and the California Court of Appeal rendered the decision valid. Even though the officer seized the phone without a warrant, useful information between him and the street gang and a murderer before were all accepted as evidence (Harper, 2007).

In 2012, Jones v. United States case, where Antoine Jones was being suspected of drug trafficking. To build a case against jones, the police had to attach a global positioning system tracker on his car and had followed all his movements in a period of four weeks (Harper, 2007). Even though a person's progress in the public space is not considered private, the Supreme Court realized that using a Global Positioning System tracker changed its course. Following an individual on foot or using a vehicle is okay, but attaching a GPS tracker to a person's car is the invasion of privacy of the property. It will require a warrant (Harper, 2007).

Warrant Search

A search warrant is an directive signed by the judge to authorize law enactment officers to search for certain objects or materials at a particular location. The police officers obtain the search warrant after convincing the magistrate that they have probable cause to believe that illegal or rather criminal activity is occurring at the place or by the person to be searched.

To ensure the evidence obtained during the search have a legal leg to stand up in a court of law, the law enforcement agents searching can only do so in the exact location and the specific object specified in the warrant. If the order specifies that the search should be conducted in the backyard, the officer has no right to search the house. In the same measure, if the search warrant specifies that the object to be examined is a weapon, then the police officer should not search cocaine unless the police have probable cause to do so.

Warrantless Search

A warrantless search is any form of search of a person or property without a search warrant from a judge according to the Fourth Amendment rights. If the law enforcement agency does not have a warrant or rather the authority to search a person, they might ask if one will willingly let them search, making it a consent search.

Warrantless Search by Consent

The law enforcement agents enact consent searches based on the consent of the person whose property the law enforcement agents would wish to search. The Fourth Amendment, just like other lawful rights, may be waived, and an individual may consent to a search of his premises or person by law enforcement officers who have not complied, thus making such a search a legal leg to stand up in Court. Numerous scholars have approximated that consent searches encompass more than 90 percent of all warrantless searches and that they are indisputably the largest source of searches undertaken without suspicion (Burke, 2015). For the law enforcement officers to conduct a consent search, the owner of the property being searched has to waive the Fourth Amendment. In most cases, the individual refuses to give consent. Should any evidence attain a result in a criminal trial, the prosecution must first prove that the consent search was entirely voluntary. The person granting the consent was not coerced. The individual who undertakes a consent search does not have to identify herself or himself as a law enforcement officer, while the person who grants the consent does not have to be the person charged with the crime. In cases such as Hoffa versus the United States, the courts ruled that if an undercover officer attains evidence based on a consent search, the evidence may be applicable in the criminal case. It will have a legal leg to stand up in Court. An individual whose property is being searched may, at any point, revoke the consent through comments or actions. However, it is fundamental to note that the consent search cannot be revoked, airport screenings, and searches of prison visitors.

Warrantless Search by Authority

In some cases, the law enforcement officer can search a person without a warrant. The police officer does not need the warrant to search an individual in a public place if they reasonably suspect possession of illegal drugs, guns, or weapons like knives and knuckle-dusters, and possession of explosives. Also, the police officer can search without a warrant in an area where a lot of violent crimes happen, and this reasonable fact can make the evidence obtained to have a legal leg to stand up against the suspect in a court of law.

The police can conduct searches in public designated areas. The law enforcement officers possess a lot of search powers within these areas, and therefore they do not need a warrant or have any reasonable grounds to suspect an individual (“FindLaw Team,” 2017). Before searching, the law enforcement officer should give a search notice by saying that the area is designated, the person or motor vehicle is in the designated area, the police have the power to search, and any efforts to stop the police from searching will be an offense. If the police do this search, then they will have the right leg to stand up in the Court of law in case of any claim by the suspect.

The police enactment officer does not require a warrant to seize contraband that is in “plain view” if the officer is justifiably and reasonably in the area where the contraband is first spotted (“FindLaw Team,” 2017). To seize it, the officer still must have a probable cause to believe that the item is contraband.

In cases of an emergency, the police can conduct a warrantless search. The law enactment officers are sanctioned to undertake a warrantless search when the time it would take to obtain a warrant would put at risk public safety or loose relevant a piece of vital evidence (“FindLaw Team,” 2017). In such cases, the police officer’s duty to guard people and reserve evidence overshadows the warrant requirement.

Incorporation of Saint Leo Value of Integrity

According to Saint Leo University, they have six values, of which one stands out, integrity. The University describes integrity as being honest, just, and accurate both in word and deed. To them, the stakeholders are supposed to deliver on their promises and to live to the school’s vision and mission. To base on this, The Supreme Court of the united states, courts of appeal, other courts of law and the whole criminal justice system should be just, accurate and honest in upholding the essential rights and freedoms of the American citizens as embedded in the American constitution one of them being right to privacy.