Freeman $240$

SEARCH WARRANTS AND THE

FOURTH AMENDMENT

The Fourth Amendment has figured in more

Supreme Court cases than any other part of the Con$-$

stitution. It states:

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 person or things

to be seized. $[$Emphasis added$]$

Courts consider a search reasonable if:

the police have probable cause to believe that

they can find evidence that the suspect commit$-$

ted a crime and

a judge issues a search warrant.

A search warrant is an order signed by a judge

or a magistrate. It authorizes police officers or fed$-$

eral agents to search for specific objects or materials

$($e$.$g$.,$ illegal narcotics$)$ at a clearly defined location

$($e$.$g$.,$ the premises at $87$ Brown Street$)$ at a specific

time $($e$.$g$.,$ between $4$:$00$ PM and $10$:$00$ PM$.)$ Police

officers obtain warrants by providing a judge with

information that they have gathered.

At trial, the traditional standards of establishing

guilt are reasonable doubt or the preponderance

of evidence. For a search warrant, the standards

are much more lenient. If the judge believes that

the information established probable cause to con$-$

duct a search, he or she will issue a warrant. If the

court determines that the extent of the search was

more thorough or intrusive than the details stated

in the search warrant, it may disallow the evidence

obtained by the search at trial.

The term probable cause is highly abstract$,$ and

the courts have long tried to come up with a com$-$

plete definition. Generally, law enforcement officials

must have trustworthy evidence that would make a

reasonable person think it likely that the proposed

arrest or search is justified.

Wong Sun v$.$ U$.$S$.,371$ U$.$S$.471(1963)$ and Illinois v$.$ Gates, $462$

U$.$S$.213(1983).$

$$

$$

The Fourth Amendment protection against

$$unreasonable searches and seizures$$ was adopted

as a protection against the widespread invasions of

privacy experienced by American colonists at the

hands of the British government. So$-$called $$writs

of assistance$$ gave royal officers broad discretion to

conduct searches of the homes of private citizens,

primarily as a way of discovering violations of strict

British customs laws. This practice led to a unique

awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat

to individual liberty and privacy that is created by

unchecked government search powers.

Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amend$-$

ment cannot be used against the defendant in a

criminal prosecution. This doctrine is known as the

exclusionary rule and the evidence itself is referred

to as the fruit of the poisonous tree. The judge will

exclude this evidence, but the case can continue

using other evidence. If evidence that was properly

gathered establishes the defendant$$s guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt, a judge or jury can still convict

him of the crime.

The Fourth Amendment protects only against

unreasonable searches by agents of government as

opposed to privately conducted searches. Searches

conducted at the request of or with the participa$-$

tion of the government are covered under of the

Fourth Amendment, under the principle of agency.

The Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that

the Fourth Amendment protects against unreason$-$

able searches and seizures conducted by govern$-$

ment officials but not by private parties acting in

a private capacity. It is obvious, though, that if a

private individual breaks into a house or office to

gather evidence, the court can still prosecute him for

any criminal actions.

UnIted StateS V$.$ JaRRett

In early $2000,$ an anonymous Turkish physician

known only as Unknownuser, obtained access

to computers via a Trojan horse program that he

attached to a picture he posted to a newsgroup

Mapp v$.$ Ohio, $367$ U$.$S$.643(1961).$

Coolidge v$.$ New Hampshire, $403$ U$.$S$.443,487(1971).$

See, e$.$g$.,$ Coolidge v$.$ New Hampshire, $403$ U$.$S$.443(1971)$ and

United States v$.$ Jacobsen, $466$ U$.$S$\mathrm{.}109(1984).$

$241$ Computer Hackers and Search and Seizure

frequented by persons interested in pornography.

$($A Trojan horse is a seemingly innocent program

containing additional hidden code that allows the

unauthorized collection, exploitation, falsification, or

destruction of data.$)$ When individuals downloaded

the picture, a Trojan horse backdoor program was

secretly installed on the downloader$$s hard drive.

This program allowed Unknownuser to gain access

to the computer, examine files, and record key

strokes, all without the downloader$$s knowledge or

consent.

On July $16,2000,$ Unknownuser sent an unsolic$-$

ited email to the Police Department in Montgom$-$

ery, Alabama, USA, informing the department that

$$I found a child molester on the Net.$$ The email

included an at$.$ Need summary on this article $.$ as soon as possible