- Key People:
- Felix Frankfurter
- Sherman Minton
- Related Topics:
- writ of assistance
Search and seizure
-
What does 'search and seizure' mean in law?
In law, "search and seizure" refers to practices law enforcement officers use to gather enough evidence to arrest and convict an offender. The extent to which police can conduct searches and seizures varies across countries.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires warrants to be issued based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, specifically describing the place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized.
Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court under the exclusionary rule.
5 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why do police sometimes need to search a person or property?
Law enforcement officers may conduct a search and seizure to gather sufficient evidence for the arrest and conviction of an offender. Most countries require a court-authorized warrant to lawfully carry out a search and seizure.
A warrant is issued at the request of a complainant who provides an affidavit with facts that suggest an offense has been committed and the accused is the guilty party. The warrant must identify the person to be arrested and describe the property to be seized or the place to be searched with precision.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What is a search warrant, and how do police get one?
A search warrant authorizes law enforcement to search a location for specific items related to a crime. To get a warrant, police must demonstrate "probable cause" to a judge that a crime has occurred and that evidence of the crime exists at the location they want to search.
This demonstration is typically done through an affidavit, a sworn statement of facts and evidence justifying the warrant's issuance. The warrant must describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized with particularity, so the officer executing the warrant has no discretion as to what they can search or seize.
5 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What are the rights of people during a search?
During a search, individuals in the United States have rights rooted in the Fourth Amendment that protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures.
A search warrant is usually required, and it must be authorized by a court and based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, specifically describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
Exceptions exist, such as searches conducted during a valid arrest, with consent, or under the "stop and frisk" doctrine if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. Evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in court under the exclusionary rule.
4 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
When can police search someone without a warrant?
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but this protection is not absolute.
Warrantless searches are permitted in a few specific circumstances:
* Consent: If a person consents to a search, even if that consent is obtained through police deception, the search is considered reasonable.
* Incident to a valid arrest: During a lawful arrest, police may search the individual and the immediate surrounding area. A valid arrest requires either a properly issued arrest warrant or circumstances where the officer witnesses the crime or has probable cause to believe the person committed it.
* Stop and frisk: Police can detain someone temporarily and search them for weapons if they have reasonable grounds to believe the person is armed and dangerous.
* Exigent circumstances: If police believe that waiting for a warrant would allow time for evidence to be destroyed or a suspect to flee, they may conduct a search without one.
* Plain view: If illegal items are in plain view, they can be seized without a warrant.
* Automobile exception: If police have probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of a crime, they can search it without a warrant.3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How does the Fourth Amendment protect against unreasonable searches and seizures?
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. It states that warrants must be issued with probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and specifically describe the place to be searched, as well as the persons or things to be seized.
The concept of what constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure has been the focus of much judicial review since the amendment's adoption. U.S. courts use the exclusionary rule to prevent evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being used in criminal proceedings.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Search and seizure, practices engaged in by law enforcement officers in order to gain sufficient evidence to ensure the arrest and conviction of an offender. The latitude allowed police and other law enforcement agents in carrying out searches and seizures varies considerably from country to country. There is considerable variance in the amount of protection given to the individual rights of the accused person.
Most countries require some type of court-authorized warrant for search and seizure to be lawfully carried out, but there is great variance (see warrant). In South Africa, for example, police may ignore the need for a warrant if delay would defeat what they were trying to accomplish. In Francethe police have extensive powers of search and seizure in the case of flagrant offense and when a crime is being committed or has just been committed, but in other instances court authorization is required.
Questions of search and seizure have assumed major importance in the United States, for the drafters of the Constitution provided in the Fourth Amendment that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Since that time, judicial attention has frequently focussed on what actually constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. The unauthorized confiscation of physical evidence (such as guns, drugs, documents, and stolen property), the interception of oral communications by electronic eavesdropping, and matters observed through an unauthorized invasion of privacy are now embraced by the concept of an illegal search and seizure. If a search is made with the consent of the person searched, even though the consent may have been effected by police deception, the search is deemed reasonable. Any search pursuant to a regularly issued search warrant issued by the judiciary is also considered reasonable. Searches that are incidental to a valid arrest and that are deemed reasonable in scope are permitted without a search warrant; a valid arrest is defined either as one pursuant to a properly issued arrest warrant or as one under circumstances in which the arresting officer actually witnesses the commission of the crime or has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested committed the crime. “Stop and frisk” cases similarly represent an exception to ordinary guarantees. A police officer has the right to detain a person temporarily and conduct a search for weapons on condition that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is armed and dangerous.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
U.S. courts, both state and federal, are required to exclude from criminal proceedings any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The so-called exclusionary rule, which previously had been applied in federal courts and those of only about half of the states, was made applicable to all U.S. courts by the 1961 Supreme Court ruling in Mapp v. Ohio. The exclusionary rule is not recognized by most other legal systems, but in many countries the trial judge may, at his discretion, deny admission of evidence that was obtained by clearly unlawful methods.