The protection from unlawful search and seizure is provided under the fourth amendment of the U.S constitution. Under the amendment, criminal suspects and citizens enjoy protection from unreasonable search of persons and their property. In addition,  they enjoy unlawful arrests (seizures) from police officers (Schmalleger, 2014). In essence, the fourth amendment protects one from police searches, of items and places with which one expects privacy, and physical apprehension (seizure) through an arrest.a valid search warrant, a valid seizure warrant and in some cases, a belief of a probable cause that the targeted victim has committed a crime.

The doctrine of the exclusionary rule provides that the evidence seized through the violation of a defendant’s right (Schmalleger, 2014). However, the exclusionary rule has exceptions. The four main exceptions are the instances of standing, attenuation, good faith and inevitable discovery. An exemplary case of standing is where the defendant is unable to prove that an unlawful search or seizure involved an intrusion into their privacy. An example is in the case of Rakas V. Illinois, 439, U.S, 128, (1978), in which the petitioners were denied the motion to suppress because of the lack of standing. Inevitable discovery follows the deterrence rationale, where the government is not required to verify its lack of bad faith in the search/seizure, so long as it can prove that a lawful, independent investigative process was not possible, and would have led to similar evidence. An example is in the case of Hicks. Vs. United States 730 A.2d 657 (D.C 1999), in which the defendant (Hicks) was convicted of Murder. In an attenuation, the exclusionary rule becomes unjustified because the unlawful actions of the police are considered attenuated under the deterrence rationale. An example is in the case of United States V. Deluca, 269 F 3d, 1128 (10^th Cir. 2001). The exclusion doctrine of good faith draws basis from the conviction that the police acted in good faith to obtain a warrant of arrest or search. An example is in the case of United States V. Leon (1984).

A search warrant must be lawful. It must be signed by a court conferring authority to a law-enforcement officer to execute the requirements of the warrant. In addition, the officer applying for a warrant must support it with a sworn, detailed statement. In the case of Caroll Vs United States, 267. U.S, 132 (1925), the supreme court pointed out that a probable cause is where the circumstances and facts by the police officer should be trustworthy and reasonable in order to convince that that a crime was committed. Thirdly, the warrant should provide a clear description of the place or person to be searched (Schmalleger, 2014). Further

WarantlessSchmalleger, 2014).

Reference

Schmalleger, F. J. (2014). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the 21^st century (13^thed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Define and then compare the legal terms “search” and “seizure.” Compare three or more elements of the terms.

Identify one police procedure that relates to a search or seizure.

Describe the ethical issues law enforcement faces as it relates to their obligations to not violate Fourth Amendment rights, but to also meet their obligations to enforce the laws of our society and bring those who break the law to justice.