The Legality of a Search

                                                                                    

The Court is usually inclined to consider two questions in any court case involving the plaintiff contesting the legality of a search. First, the members must consider whether the citizen had an expectation of privacy in whichever activity they were carrying out during the search. Secondly, the judges need to determine whether the individual’s expectation was reasonable. However, there is no standardized method for determining the expectations and their degree of reasonability. Therefore, this decision has been left to the shifting political and social views of law enforcement officers. The use of many complex terms during the events surrounding a search has led to a feeling of insecurity among the city’s occupants. Safety is instrumental in any community as it fosters a sense of pride among the occupants, and results in a reduction in the number of injuries, thus, leading to an improvement in the well-being of the members. Burke, Drake, and Slobogin reinforce the understanding of the legality of a search and seizure.

Drake reviews the merits and drawbacks of the implementation of the new judicial federalism and describes the reasons against reviving the new clauses introduced. In most cases, state laws take precedence over federal laws meaning the determination of criminal intent is always tricky. Drake suggests that the Courts should be motivated to interpret the search and seizure clause to achieve a semblance of equality. According to Drake (2016), their involvement would take care of the “mass of contradictions and obscurities” surrounding this clause and overhaul the current system (329). Therefore, judges and advocates can play a vital role in bringing about unparalleled chances for the formulation of policies that protect the citizens. But, the members of the Court should ensure they have the full facts and claims before deciding to avoid over-reliance on a single judgment issued years ago.

 Secondly, Slobogin discusses the role of the Fourth Amendment in protecting citizens against unlawful search and seizures. According to Slobogin, the expectation of privacy is “circular and, hence, subjective and unpredictable” (148). Therefore, the Fourth Amendment might cease to matter as technological advances continue to make it easier for law officers to view one’s activities. Furthermore, a conservative inference is unreflective and damaging to societal norms which further incites fear into the public. Even simple concepts involving relativity can be manipulated which makes it even more difficult to distinguish the privacy guarantees from other flawed policies. Although all privacy standards have their flaws, their potential for alienability can help maximize the flexibility of the Fourth Amendment in dealing with the issues posed by law enforcement practices.

Additionally, Burke analyses the reasonableness of the doctrine that specifies the consent one is expected to give before a search. Law enforcement officers may at times use coercive techniques that override the citizen’s voluntariness. This doctrine fails to consider the general tendency of the public to comply with law enforcement as they lack the courage to say no. Consequently, the power of this perceived authority contributes to a culture where commands will likely be shrouded in the language of a request. Thus, there is the need to begin an inquiry into the fairness of this doctrine which has been lost in all the commotion about subjectivity. Such an investigation would result in a clear distinction between an officer’s reasonableness and a citizen’s voluntariness (Burke, 2015). If law enforcement officers had to articulate their reasons for requesting the search before gaining consent, then the resulting searches are more likely to be fair.

To combat this issue, the members of the City Council should develop a remedy for invasion of privacy through unlawful searched by enforcing police liability. By doing so, the members would be sending a message of reassurance to the city’s occupants and a warning to law enforcement officers. In the event of such a remedy, officers are less likely to use coercive means to earn consent or to bend the situation at hand to suit their point of view. Also, the officers would then realize that no amount of evidence should suffice instead of a warrant or consent as they have no greater rights than citizens. The officers would then be liable for any injuries during the unreasonable search, and the evidence they gathered would be inadmissible in court. Therefore, by making unjustified searches fruitless, the members of the City Council can uphold the citizens’ right to be free from these searches.

In summary, the decision to determine the reasonability of a search involves a complex and rigorous process. Law enforcement officers may base their conclusions on their intent to close a case, thus, forego the privacy expectations of the citizens. Therefore, the members of the Court should decide on the reasonability and, hence, the legality of a search. But, all standards concerning privacy have their flaws which leaves a lot of room for manipulation of these doctrines. Moreover, the public is inclined towards obeying the officers’ requests even when they are made without enough due case. As a result, the city officials should resort to holding officers liable for any unreasonable searches to create a sense of safety in the citizens.