Coherent Cookies Policy

Coherent Cookies Policy: our aim is customer satisfaction! We guarantee complete security, fully customized content and perfect services. Read more »

It’s Ok

Workplace Security Unit

← Homesexuality todayEncountering Gender and Sexuality in India →

Buy custom Workplace Security Unit essay

Workplace Security Unit

The Fourth Amendment was enforced so as to strike a balance between the liberties of individuals and the rights of the society. This Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures to the U.S community. It is an outgrowth of the British ruling before the Revolutionary War where by the soldiers would go into individual properties without warrants to destroy those who were suspected of being disloyal to the king. Basically the Fourth Amendment is all about privacy and was therefore meant to ensure that the new government respects the citizen’s dignity.

It has been concluded that all searches and seizure conducted illegally cannot be presented as evidence for the conviction of the suspect. The Court commands that all officers whether public or private should provide a search warranty to the suspected persons before conducting the search. According to Hess and Orthmann (2009 pg 94), the exclusionary rule provides that no evidence that is presented in court during a trial for a suspected criminal will be used against him if the search carried out was illegal. All illegal searches are those that are conducted by officers without search warranties.

Price for an Essay

Total price  

* Final order price might be slightly different depending on the current exchange rate of chosen payment system.

Private person search is only allowed if there is consent to the search. For example if the officer conducting the search is warrantless, he or she can agree with the owner of the premises to allow them to search. The key factor in this case is the consent by the owner of premises. In Harris v United States, it is first considered that a warrantless search is reasonable but they later base it on the cardinal rule which states that, in seizing goods, the law enforcement officers or agents should provide search warrants wherever reasonable (Hess and Orthmann 2009 pg 99).

In the event a private person or private security personnel violate their authority to search, the court cannot use any evidence provided to convict the suspect. It is therefore reasonable that the court will not take action against the suspect. The person whose rights have been violated has the right to take action against the officers who violated his premises. The law cannot be retroactively applied if the officer took a certain action without a probable cause (Gaines and Miller 2008 pg 166).

Related Sociology essays

  1. Encountering Gender and Sexuality in India
  2. Why gay marriages should be allowed
  3. Homesexuality today
  4. Class and gender inequalities

Most popular orders

Limited Time OFFER Get 10% OFF Your First Order!
Online - please click here to chat