Yes, one's home is still pretty much one's castle. No one has
complete immunity from police searches of homes, but as a rule the
authorities can't search your home unless they have probable cause to
believe a crime has been (or is being) committed. Mere suspicion is
not enough.
In general, the same rules apply to cars as apply to homes. But in
practicality -- because one is more likely to be arrested without a
warrant when using a car than when being at home, and because cars are
mobile, are frequently used as the means to commit a crime, and are
used on public roadways -- you're not quite as safe from search and
seizure in your car as you are in your home.
As you undoubtedly know, the right to freedom from unreasonable search
and seizure stems from both common law and the Fourth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution:
U.S. Constitution: 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."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
In other words, while search and seizure is legal, it has to be
"reasonable," and for there to be a warrant, there needs to be
"probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation." Based on common
law, the courts also have upheld warrantless searches, generally when
done incident to an arrest, when needed to prevent evidence from being
destroyed, or when needed for the immediate safety of people.
You can find an _excellent_ summary of the case law on the Fourth
Amendment by following the link above.
In general, the test use to determine whether a search is legitimate
hinges on one's reasonable expectation of privacy. That's one reason
there's a difference between cars and homes, even though the principle
is the same. If I'm sitting in my living room, I reasonably expect
(if the doors and drapes block a view inside) that I can behave as if
nobody is watching. But in a car on a public road, I have much less
expectation of privacy.
Here's a summary of how the rule is applied.
Understanding Search and Seizure Law
"The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a
'legitimate expectation of privacy' in the place or thing searched. If
not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by
definition, no privacy issues.
"Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to
determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a
legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched.
"Did the person subjectively (actually) expect some degree of privacy?
Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable, that is, one that
society is willing to recognize?"
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/DED24689-ADA8-4785-887A0B4A19A694DE
A summary of cases dealing with vehicular searches can be found on the
next link. As you can see, in general the differences in vehicle
searches and home searches are based on the different expectations of
privacy. But police still can't search vehicles at will; they must
either have a warrant or a probable cause relating to commission of a
crime.
Vehicular Searches
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html#4
Here's another article on searches you may find interesting:
Searches and Seizures FAQ
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/faqs/detail.cfm/objectID/81B70BE7-806D-43EB-8632156E62570E6E/catID/268BB6A8-8884-4677-89869B6AD8A75ADA
Probably the biggest change in the past half-century is that the
exclusionary rule has become firmly entrenched in law. Although the
rule -- which generally prevents the prosecution from using in trial
evidence that was obtained illegally -- has been around in some form
since the 19th century, it wasn't until Mapp vs. Ohio, a 1961 case,
that the rule was applied to the states as well as the federal
government. This had the effect of putting some real teeth into
prohibitions against illegal searches. A full explanation of the
exclusionary rule can be found on this page:
Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: The Exclusionary Rule
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/06.html#3
Another more recent change involves adapting to high technology, which
allows certain types of "searches" that weren't previously possible.
It is possible, for example, to see through walls in a limited sense
by using infrared detection equipment. Generally, court decision in
such cases have hinged on the expectation of privacy.
I hope this fully answers your question.
Best wishes,
mvguy
Google search term: "search and seizure" "fourth amendment"
://www.google.com/search?q=%22search+and+seizure%22+%22fourth+amendment%22&sa=Google+Search |
,
0 Comments
)