The Founding Fathers would likely be appalled if they knew how eroded the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has become over time since the inception of our great Republic. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (also copied verbatim in the Indiana Constitution and the constitutions of most states) reads:
“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.”
These words protect a sacred principle, namely, that the government is prevented from searching the houses, papers, and effects of its citizens in all but only a very limited set of circumstances. This does not say that searches and seizures can never happen; it only limits law enforcement from searching your house, your vehicle, your person, or your property without a very good reason.
The phrase, “probable cause” is a legal term of art that needs much clarification. “Probable cause” means that the state or federal government, by its officer or agent, must have reason to believe that you have committed a particular offense under the law. It is not sufficient for a search that you have committed some offense; probable cause must include the particular offense that the officer has “reasonable suspicion” to believe that you committed. It is not enough that the officer had a “hunch” that “something wasn’t right” or that you were “acting suspiciously”. The officer must believe with relative certainty a particular offense has been committed. If the officer doesn’t find evidence that conforms to that suspicion, whatever s/he does find may be excluded from a court of law by what is called, “The Fruit of The Poisoned Tree” doctrine.
The “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree” doctrine is reasoned that any evidence obtained, directly or indirectly, from an invalid search is inadmissible in any court of competent jurisdiction. In other words, if a search is found to be invalid, any evidence found in the entire chain of evidence from that search must be excluded from evidence against particular person(s).
There are a few exceptions that commonly arise in encounters with law enforcement:
1. Terry v. Ohio “stop and frisk” searches. These searches are premised on the officer’s safety and allow a “pat down” of a temporary detainee prior to field questioning. The search is limited to a search for weapons that may be a threat to the officer’s safety, but any and all contraband discovered in the course of the search is admissible if the conditions for the Terry “stop and frisk” are met. These are limited to your person only, and do not include vehicles or houses, etc.
2. Search incident to arrest. Once a suspect has been rightfully arrested (on a reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a particular offense) and Miranda rights read, the suspect’s person and vehicle (if immediately present) may be searched. Here the justification is also officer safety, but also what is called “exigency”–basically that the evidence may be tampered with or destroyed if it is not found and preserved immediately.
3. “Plain view”. Officers may lawfully conduct a plain view search of your vehicle or home. While not legally a “search” at all, this type of “search” is where the suspect has no reasonable expectation of privacy. (For example, an officer, while standing on a public sidewalk, peers into the window of your home, and finds some violation of the law.) This commonly takes place when officers use flashlights to peer into car windows to look for contraband, or where an officer has consent to be in a particular place, and finds violations.
4. Canine “searches”. The various courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have determined that exterior roving canines (home or vehicle) are not considered “searches” for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, if a canine law enforcement unit roves a dog around your car and the dog “alerts” (which can consist of a wide range of behaviors) law enforcement officers can use this “alert” as probable cause for search of the interior of your vehicle for drugs.
5. Consent. If you consent to any search, law enforcement does not require probable cause to recover admissible evidence to use against you. Anything they find in a consensual search of your person, vehicle, or home can be admitted to a court of law.
If you do not consent, you force law enforcement to have proper probable cause in order to conduct a search, which is what our Founding Fathers would have wanted. Respect the system they created. Whether you have committed a crime is of no consequence; whether you are guilty or innocent of any particular crime at the time of a search has literally nothing to do with whether law enforcement can search you, your vehicle, or your home. Protect these rights, and require law enforcement to do its job.
If you feel that these rights have been violated, you need to contact a criminal defense attorney at SFT Lawyers. We can help. CONTACT US or call for a FREE CONSULTATION. (219) 841-5683.