2007-02-27 02:52:37 · 18 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
HERE IS THE TEXT of the Fourth Amendment:
"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."
It has been widely interpreted through legislation which fine-tunes it. As you can see, it sets forth the requirements for what a Warrant shall include, but does not actually say one is required for all searches.
2007-02-27 03:03:55 · answer #1 · answered by MOM KNOWS EVERYTHING 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-06-10 07:23:10 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, there are 8 exceptions to the 4th Amendment.
Search Incidental to a lawful arrest: Everyone thats placed under arrest is automatically searched.
Plain View, If you can clearly see it, you dont need a warrant to go get it. Ex. A pot plant in from of an open window (Yes this actually has happened)
Stop Question and Frisk, An officer is allowed to frisk for weapons
Consent: You dont need a warrant if the person consents to the search
Hot pursuit: Chasing someone into a building, the police dont have to get a warrant before following
Motor Vehicle: If the officer for example, smells pot smoke, there is no need for a warrant to toss the car....that includes locked glove boxes and trunks. Also, when vehicles are towed by the department, they are inventoried, that means EVERYTHING in that car is gone through and documented.
Emergency situations: A call comes in for a domestic violence, and the officer hears "Help me!" But when he knocks they say they're fine and go away. The police dont need a warrant to enter at that point.
Customs officers And Border Patrol;; Dont need a warrant to search when entering the country. Or when flying.
2007-02-27 03:12:58 · answer #3 · answered by zebj25 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it does not, under current judicial interpretation. It requires that searches not be "unreasonable." Thus, if there are cases where the police have probable cause to suspect malicious activity, they can search without a warrant. For example, if a police officer pulls you over, and when you roll down the window a billowing cloud of marijuana smoke comes out, the police does not have to get a warrant before they search your car for drugs. Obviously, not every issue is this cut and dry, but modern judicial interpretation gives law enforcement (and some others) leeway in a variety of situations. And don't argue what the law "actually says"--law never exists in a vacuum, it only has meaning within a system of judicial precedent.
2007-02-27 02:59:12 · answer #4 · answered by Qwyrx 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, a Police officer or Federal Officer can enter your home and car if searching for a real person; if for that reason, they cannot search your home or car for anything else. You can have a bag of pot sitting on the couch they can't do anything unless they come back with a warrant. Thats why you probly hear about Federal Law Enforcement breaking into someones house without a warrant because they usually are after a person example U.S Marshal. Now, if they want to take you with them just for questioning they don't need a warrant which you can refuse but there is a trick to that. If they are taking you in for a crime and putting on trial they need a warrant for your arrest. And there are other circumstances but those are the basics.
2007-02-27 03:01:34 · answer #5 · answered by glenn s 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. For the police to do a search, they can use what's called reasonable suspicion. An example would be if they stop a car and they smell a certain odor or notice blood on the back bumper. This entitles them to search to see if a law has been broken. Also, a search warrant must have specifics. They can't just say "residence." They have to specify what they are looking for or what it's pertaining to.
2007-02-27 02:57:49 · answer #6 · answered by Greywolf 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
no it does not.
The US Supreme court has upheld warrantles searches during traffic stops and for those on probation and parole and some other instances.
Most cases a warrant is needed but not all cases.
Also the federal government as part of the Patriot Act can search your financial, medical, phone and ISP records without a warrant as well as search your email, letters and listen to your phone calls without a warrant.
To all those who are saying "yes" please educate yourselves to how the government is so very quickly taking this country form a democracy to a fachist state.
2007-02-27 03:00:28 · answer #7 · answered by reallyconfuzzled1 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not unless there is probable cause to search such as detection of and illegal odor, or something is visibly in sight of the cop.
4th amendment is the right again "illegal search and seizure"
They are allowed to "protect themselves" and search your pockets and such, but anything where you presume the right to privacy, they need a detailed affidavit for a warrant.
2007-02-27 02:58:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A warrant will be issued under following that there is probable cause first off. Of course, many Americans don't know this. So I'd suggest reading our constitutional rights before our government takes them away with more supposed "safety/security" acts.
2007-02-27 03:56:14 · answer #9 · answered by Ted S 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
If you are caught committing a crime, it is reasonable to search at that time.
Basically it's against UNREASONABLE searches. If probable cause and urgency are there, a search can be conducted. You may be asked to justify the search after the fact and if it does not pass the muster of reasonable, the evidence (and likely the charges) will be thrown out.
2007-02-27 02:59:45 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋