The Pros And Cons Of Unwarrantless Search

A warrantless search is recognized as unethical under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment because it violates a person right to privacy. Privacy is extended to persons who are within the comforts of their living quarters, personal belongings and documents they may possess. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens by prohibiting law enforcement officials from conducted unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment, 2017). However, the criminal justice system implemented exception rules that permits law enforcement officials with the right to conduct searches, which may result in seizures, without the usage of a warrant. The primary exclusionary rule that was used in two independent cases, Georgia v. Randolph (2005) and U.S. v. Groves (2008), was consent. If consent is given by a person reasonably

Groves, police officers responded to an emergency call, where the witness reported hearing gunshots coming from or near Daniel Groves’ apartment. The officers had questioned Groves about the gunshots, but he denied possessing and shooting a gun. Groves then denied officers permission to search his apartment because he had the right to protect himself from unwarranted searches. The officers attempted to get a search warrant but that was also denied by a federal judge. Nonetheless, the officers remained persistent to gain access as they returned to the apartment deliberately knowing that Groves would not be there. Groves’ girlfriend, Shaunte Foster, gave officers consent to enter the apartment to perform a search. Upon searching the apartment, the officers discovered ammunition in Groves’ nightstand which implied that Groves did have access to a firearm. The evidence led to the indictment of Groves for the violation of possession a firearm as a convicted felon. Groves submitted several motions to get the decision overturned but they all were rejected, and his conviction remained held (United States of America v. Daniel Groves, Sr.,