From Arrest to Adjudication

¶ … Fourth Amendment states that law enforcement officers need to receive permission from a legal authority in order to be able to look for evidence or seize objects that might contribute to providing information concerning a criminal act. The context of the amendment and the process of incorporation mean that it can only protect individuals when government officials are involved. It does not protect people in a situation concerning private individuals and this generates much confusion with regard to the degree to which a warrant can affect a person.

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."

A law enforcement officer needs to convince a neutral magistrate that there is probable cause for a warrant to be released in order for the respective request to be justified. Probable cause requires evidence that can be supported by facts and this means that a warrant cannot be issued on suspicion alone. The concept practically means that a warrant requires a consistent reason in order to be issued. Suspicion needs to have a solid ground in order for it to generate a search process. "An officer can suspect that somebody is involved in a crime and that there is evidence to be found at the person's home, but without any facts to justify such a suspicion, a search warrant shall not be issued by a judge." (Galiano, 2011, p. 23) The concept of probable cause is divisive as a consequence to how it can refer to a statistical probability when considering the general context of the Fourth Amendment.

In order for a warrant to be issued, the law enforcement officer requesting it also needs to swear that the evidence he or she is presented is factual. An official who is discovered to have lied in order to obtain a warrant cannot use evidence gathered through the case, regardless if the respective information could be used with the purpose of convicting the individual.

The Fourth Amendment is specific with the purpose of making it mandatory for an official to provide a magistrate with information concerning the crime that has been committed and the location where the search will take place. Individuals devising the document were completely against the idea of the authorities issuing general warrants. Warrants need to be of a specific nature, as only this can make it possible for the community to protect the rights of the individual (Galiano, 2011, p. 24).

A situation involving a person who is a suspect in a criminal case and who is likely to escape as long as law enforcement officers do not enter the premises of the location where the person is can influence officials to search without having a warrant. The fact that they know that the suspect is going to attempt to evade as long as they do not intervene is considered grounds for them to ignore the Fourth Amendment and enter the location regardless of the fact that they do not own a warrant. If residents of a particular location are unwilling or unable to open the door when law enforcement officers require it and suspect that it is essential for them to enter the premises, the respective officials can enter even with the fact that they do not have a warrant. Such situations can involve a criminal trying to escape, evidence being destroyed (such as drugs being flushed or documents being burned), or individuals who are likely to be harmed. A warrant is not requested in any of these situations, taking into account that officers of the law are entitled to do everything in their power in order to prevent such events from happening.

Consent is another case concerning a search process being conducted by law enforcement officers in spite of the fact that they do not own a warrant. As long as a person provides officials with permission to search a particular location, the respective law enforcement officers can enter the premises and search for evidence. As a consequence, if a person who owns the same area where a suspect lives provides officials with the key to a suspect's house, the search is in agreement with the Fourth Amendment.

While the Fourth Amendment is meant to protect the lives of citizens from searches or arrests that are unreasonable, the exclusionary rule in some cases provides law enforcement officers with the right to act without having a warrant. Denying access is in many cases likely to reflect negatively on the individual, as this might mean that he or she is acting in disagreement with the community's interests and that they are directly interfering with a police investigation. Police officers have extenuating circumstances in which they have the authority to perform a search process without having a warrant.

Not owning a warrant and still performing a search or arrest operation is likely to generate positive results. Warrantless researches can make the difference between a criminal operating without being penalized for his or her crimes and someone who is actually caught and punished accordingly. This is why it is perfectly logical for law enforcement officers to have the right to act in many cases despite the fact that they do not have a warrant to do so.