You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 4 (1004 words)
The first part usually safeguards people against unreasonable searches and seizures. There had been numerous ways of remedying unreasonable searches in the ancient times unlike in the modern jurisprudence that has facilitated respect of the amendment by the police officers.
This is because the window is viewable by anyone one walking along that street. For example in Katz v. United States, a case ruled by the Supreme Court that there was no search if a person has an expectation of privacy and this expectation should be reasonable. For this case, if a police officer looks through the garbage, this cannot be termed as a search since there is not expectation that the garbage is private. The Congress has already placed statutory restrictions on incidents like when a police officer monitors telephone numbers dialed by individuals. At one time, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Florida v. Riley, where police officers had hovered above a suspect's house with a helicopter and conducted surveillance. There can be no expectation of privacy in illegal activities. For example where a police officer uses a drug sniffing dog to investigate an illegal activity is not a search.
Under certain circumstances, it is not necessary for warrant for a search or seizure. For this case, the police officer must have a probable cause that makes him believe that the object in question is contraband before the search and seizure. There is search without a warrant on open fields if at all; the person conducting his activity in the open field had no reasonable expectation of privacy. ...
Not exactly what you need?