Political Science

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  (Fourth Amendment, United states Constitution).

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments in the United States Constitution.  One of the reasons for the same is that it affirms and protects privacy rights (Right to Privacy, p1).   It affirms the sanctity of a persons body, his place of abode, and his personal effects against unreasonable intrusion by the government.  It also reiterates the time-honored rule that a persons house and personal effects are so sacred that not even the highest and mightiest monarch could enter it against the owners will. 

The Fourth Amendment requires that there must be a lawful search warrant before police authorities like the FBI may enter the house of a private individual, go over his personal belongings and search for any illegal contraband.  In the absence of a search warrant no government official can enter another persons house and get whatever evidence they could find.  In these cases, the individual can easily ask the court to exclude whatever evidence was discovered by the FBI. 

However, it does not say that the right to privacy is absolute.  In fact, the Fourth Amendment itself limits the right to privacy of the public only against unreasonable search and seizure.  This means that when the search and seizure is reasonable the prohibition under the Fourth Amendment does not apply.  A search is conducted when there is an exploration or examination of an individuals house, premises, or person in order to discover things that may be used by the government for evidence in a criminal prosecution (Criminal Procedure Law  Practice, 2004, p.194).  On the other hand, a constitutional search is when the search is made in compliance with the Fourth Amendment and relevant case laws. 
One of the instances of reasonable search and seizure is the stop and frisk arrest.  Pursuant to the doctrine announced in the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968), law enforcement officers may based on reasonable suspicion alone rather than on probable cause stop a person in a public place and ask questions to determine if the person has committed or is about to commit an offense and to frisk the person for weapons if the officer thinks that his personal safety may be affected.    In this case, the police officers need only show that at the time of the stop they observed an unusual conduct that led them to reasonably conclude that (1) that criminal activity is about to take place or that criminal activity has just taken place and (2) that the person with whom he or she is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous. 

Another exception is cases of search of moving vehicles.  Police officers may establish stops and check points along the road.  In these cases, the police officer has the authority to examine the peripherals of the car if there is any illegal contraband that is exposed to plain view.  When the police officer discovers illegal contraband such as guns or drugs, the police officer has the authority to conduct a more thorough search and to arrest the individual based on the evidence.  The reason for this police is practicality.  Practical considerations demand that it would not be possible for law enforcement officers to obtain a search warrant of a moving vehicle before a search is made. It is highly mobile such that at the time the search warrant is obtained the vehicle may have been moved to another location.