Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and seize or confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime. Some countries have certain provisions in their constitutions that provide the public with the right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures". This right is generally based on the premise that everyone is entitled to a reasonable right to privacy. Though specific interpretation may vary, this right can often require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant or consent of the owner before engaging in any form of search and seizure. In cases where evidence is seized in a search, that evidence might be rejected by court procedures, such as with a motion to suppress the evidence under the exclusionary rule.
Worldwide
Italy In Italy protection from search and seizure is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, which states:
The home is inviolable. Home inspections, searches, or seizures shall not be admissible save in the cases and manners complying with measures to safeguard personal liberty. Controls and inspections for reason of public health and safety, or for economic and fiscal purposes, shall be regulated by appropriate laws.
New Zealand
There is little to no protection from unreasonable search and seizure in New Zealand. Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA 1990) incorporates the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure into New Zealand law, stating that: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise." However, Section 4 of the Act explicitly denies the Bill of Rights supremacy over other legislation. The result is that the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure is routinely ignored by the State, which is able to exercise sweeping powers of search and seizure against private individuals. This has been reinforced further by courts delineating unreasonableness versus unlawfulness, making it possible that, for example, a lawful search can be unreasonable. The only remedy available to individuals who have experienced an unreasonable search and seizure is to seek to have evidence excluded from proceedings under the Evidence Act procedures. However, there is no statutory remedy or recourse for search and seizures which do not yield any evidence, and only rarely are civil damages awarded to individuals who can afford to file lawsuits for compensation.
United Kingdom Historically, English common law made use of a number of different types of legal writs to effect seizures for various reasons. For example, a writ of arrestandis bonis ne dissipentur provided for the seizure of goods when it was found likely they would not be properly cared for during a court case to settle ownership. A writ of attachiamenta bonorum allowed for the seizure of personal property to recover a debt. In relation to criminal investigations, the police have a range of powers to search people and places without first making an arrest, often described as "stop and search". The United Kingdom has several different legal systems and the powers and procedure for stop and search varies depending on the jurisdiction:
Powers of the police in England and Wales § Search without arrest in England and Wales Powers of the police in Scotland § Search without a warrant in Scotland
United States
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that:
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. The text of the amendment is brief, and most of the law determining what constitutes an unlawful search and seizure is found in court rulings. The brief definitions of the terms "search" and "seizure" was concisely summarized in United States v. Jacobsen, which said that the Fourth Amendment:
protects two types of expectations, one involving "searches", the other "seizures". A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. A seizure of property occurs where there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.As recently as 2012, the United States Supreme Court has clarified that the "reasonable expectation of privacy test" for searches "has been added to, but not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test," meaning that property rights establish a baseline level of Fourth Amendment protection.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
