Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Law

At Jackson Law, we understand the intricate balance between law enforcement duties and the constitutional rights of individuals. It is crucial to recognize the circumstances under which the government may intrude upon your privacy to collect evidence in criminal cases.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution establishes clear boundaries for law enforcement to follow when conducting arrests, property searches, and seizing items such as unlawful substances or firearms. This foundational element of search and seizure law is something everyone should be familiar with, and we begin with the essential principles enshrined in the Fourth Amendment itself.

Understanding Your Rights Under the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment firmly states:

“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.”

This cornerstone of the Amendment serves to safeguard individual privacy rights. To uphold these liberties, the Fourth Amendment prevents “unreasonable” searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement agencies.

However, it does permit searches and seizures deemed reasonable under the law. In effect, this grants the police authority to override personal privacy under certain conditions, allowing them to search your residence, outbuildings, vehicles, office, personal or commercial documents, financial statements, waste disposal areas, and more, provided they:

• have a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause that evidence of a crime will be discovered, or
• find themselves in a situation that justifies a warrantless search.

Limitations of Fourth Amendment Protections

Privacy expectations are at the heart of Fourth Amendment protections. If an individual does not have a “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the location or object being searched, then the Fourth Amendment does not apply.

Courts determine the legitimacy of a privacy expectation through a two-pronged test developed by the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. Did the person genuinely expect a degree of privacy?
2. Is this expectation objectively reasonable, meaning society at large would agree with it?

Consider the example of using a public restroom, where privacy is generally expected and socially accepted as reasonable. Conversely, observing an illegal weapon in plain view on a car seat does not invoke the Fourth Amendment since most would agree there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a scenario.

An instructive case by the Supreme Court (Bond v. U.S., No. 98-9349 (April 17, 2000)) affirmed that a bus passenger’s opaque bag stored overhead deserved a reasonable expectation of privacy, making any probing by police a search subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions.

The Role of Private Security Personnel

Interestingly, private security workers now outnumber police officers three to one in the U.S., meaning you’re more likely to interact with a security guard than a police officer in many environments. Current legislation does not extend Fourth Amendment constraints to private security guards.

For instance, if a mall security guard searches a shopper’s bag and finds illegal substances, this evidence can be handed over to the police and used in court because the search was privately conducted.

As the responsibilities of private security personnel continue to resemble those of the police, it will be interesting to see if Fourth Amendment guidelines will eventually be applied to their actions.

Consequences of Fourth Amendment Violations

When a court identifies that an unwarranted search has taken place, any seized evidence is typically excluded from use against the defendant in a criminal trial. Known as the “exclusionary rule,” established in 1961 by the Supreme Court, its purpose is to discourage illegal searches by rendering such evidence inadmissible.

Additionally, any further evidence discovered as a result of an illegal search—the “fruit of the poisonous tree”—is also typically not permitted in trial.

However, it’s important to note that an illegal search does not automatically result in case dismissal. Should the prosecution hold ample additional evidence, the trial can proceed. Illegally seized evidence may also factor into sentencing, be relevant in civil and deportation cases, and possibly be used to challenge a witness’s credibility under certain conditions.

At Jackson Law, we are committed to protecting the rights of our clients with a deep understanding of search and seizure laws. If you feel your rights have been violated or you require legal counsel, please reach out to our dedicated team at 650-587-8556.