The Pros and Cons of Search and Seizure Laws Research Paper

The Pros and Cons of Search and Seizure Laws - Research Paper Example The paper tells that sometimes, government representatives can search individual’s property usually regarded as private for constitutional reasons. Normally, the search happens when the person possesses or permanently lives in the area of search. When a representative of the government uses control over a person so he feels he cannot liberally leave or end the interaction with the representative there is occurrence of a seizure. However, a seizure occurs only when an individual yields to the government but in case the individual avoids detention or escapes, there is no occurrence of seizure. In the police department, Search and Seizure process is a famous occurrence. Since the process is legal, any official from the law enforcement department can carry out a search on one's individual property in case there is some kind of suspicion on the individual about involvement in any kind of criminal activity. However, several rules to observe when executing a search and seizure proced ure. In the United States Constitution, the search and seizure procedure is in the fourth amendment act. However, the society regularly violates this act because it additionally offers the affected citizens the assurance to ask for security against the seizure idea. The main reason for the Fourth Amendment was to shield the personal privacy and rights of American citizens. It states that every person has the right to be safe in their persons, papers, houses, and effects against insensible searches and seizures. In addition, this amendment explains the making and execution of specific warrants. This law is very important when tackling drug cases because the way the police discover and seize the drugs is important in any drug crime case. In addition, after a thorough investigation the search and seizure can be valid admissible evidence in court (California Criminal lawyers, 2010). It is evident that the African Americans experience an uneven share of arrests and prison sentences. Alth ough this could be because of differences in the disparity flows in crime rates across population groups, it could also be because of the discrepancy being an outcome of discriminatory targeting of suspects by the police. Since the fourth Amendment law says nothing about their exercise of enforcement judgment about the pool of potential suspects, the police can target whomever they desire. Consequently, the black drivers have no legal claim in case the police officers stop large numbers of black drivers allegedly for speeding but mainly examine the presence of drugs while stopping few whites (Law.jrank, 2011). The main reason why the courts invalidated vagrancy and loitering is the acts of racism together with broad police judgment. In order to fight these two vices, the modern government is turning its focus on suspects' privacy interests and taking on a fictive view of agreement that permits a good deal of informal coercion to happen. However, this method is not effective because the police have no authority like the one present in the old regime to help them carry out effective community policing (Stuntz, 1999). The major focus of the search and seizure law is to protect privacy. "Privacy" in this case does not mean the generalized right for exclusion but rather, the interest of being free from observation. Additionally, this law helps protect the community from the evil acts in which only the police can reveal and see but the ordinary citizen cannot hence the police are able to incriminate the criminals (Law.jrank, 2011). As Agarwal (2008) affirms, the major purpose of the enforcement of search and seizure laws is to protect the society against all insecurity and delinquency. The law of search and seizure helps to respect and protect the privacy of community members. In this regard, it helps in