n. Inspection of a person`s premises (home, business or vehicle) by law enforcement officers in search of evidence of the commission of a crime and taking (seizure and disposal) of evidence (such as controlled narcotics, a pistol, counterfeit notes, a blood-soaked blanket). The fundamental question is whether search and seizure under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution (applied to states under the 14th Amendment) is excluded. Constitutional Amendment), which states: “The right of persons to be free from improper search and seizure of their person, home, papers and personal effects shall not be violated. Therefore, searches and seizures must be conducted pursuant to a search warrant or if the officer has solid facts that give him “probable reasons” to believe that there was evidence of a particular crime at the scene, but not time to obtain a warrant for arrest. Evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is not admissible in court, and evidence will not be prosecuted by such illegal evidence. But that`s not all. There are also circumstances in which seizures that were initially appropriate may become inappropriate. Seizure is lawful only so that law enforcement agencies can serve their purpose.

Adequacy determines what can and cannot happen during a legal seizure. Our courts have established two basic principles regarding the appropriateness of seizure: the scope and duration of seizure must be proportionate. Under our state and federal constitutions, we have the right to be safe from inappropriate search and seizure. Being free from an unreasonable search is easy for most people to understand; Law enforcement cannot search you, your home or your personal belongings without first obtaining a warrant. But what is a seizure, let alone an unreasonable crisis? Note: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to improper search and seizure. It requires that an arrest warrant may be issued only on probable grounds and that it must describe, inter alia, the persons or property to be seized. However, not all seizures require an arrest warrant. A seizure that constitutes an arrest requires reasonable probable reason, and the stop usually requires reasonable suspicion that the identified person(s) are being stopped, although checks such as those conducted at drunk driving checkpoints may be justified by a plan that explicitly and neutrally restricts the conduct of police officers without requiring individual suspicion. The right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure is recognized by the international human rights community. [2] Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 (NZBoRA 1990) incorporates this right into New Zealand law and states: “Every person has the right to be free from improper search or seizure, whether of any person, property, correspondence or otherwise. Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil and customary legal systems in which police or other authorities and their officers who suspect that an offence has been committed begin a search of a person`s property and confiscate all relevant evidence related to the offence.

In the law of civil practice, the term refers to the act performed by an officer of the court by order of the court when taking custody of the property of a person against whom a court has rendered a judgment in order to pay a certain sum of money to another person. The property is confiscated so that it can be sold under the authority of the court to comply with the judgment. Property may also be seized if there is a high probability that a defendant will conceal or remove property from jurisdiction, so that in the event of a judgment against him, the property cannot be used to pay for the judgment. By seizing or confiscating a defendant`s property, the court prevents the defendant from committing fraud in court. For example, the owner of the property in question may consent to the search. Consent must be voluntary, but there is no clear criterion for determining whether or not this is the case. Instead, a court will consider “the totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether consent was voluntary. Police officers are not technically required to inform a suspect that they can refuse, but this policy depends on the department`s specific rules. There are also circumstances in which a third party with equal control, i.e. joint authority, over the property may agree to a search.

Another example of improper search and seizure is Mapp v. Ohio. [8] Search and seizure is used in criminal law to describe the examination of a person`s home, vehicle or business by a law enforcement officer for evidence that a crime has been committed. During a search, law enforcement officers examine some or all of a person`s property and look for specific objects related to a crime they have reason to believe has been committed. Seizure occurs when officers take possession of items during the search. FindLaw.com Free and reliable legal information for consumers and legal professionals Are you a lawyer? Visit our professional site” protects two types of expectations, one with “searches”, the other with “inputs”. A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society deems appropriate is violated. A seizure of property occurs when there is a significant infringement of a person`s ownership rights in that property. [6] In the Oklahoma Press Pub case of 1946.