Police searches can provide the state with evidence of criminal activity. However, searches by law enforcement professionals can be invasive and potentially destructive. The law generally protects people from invasive and unnecessary searches.
The Fourth Amendment provides a critical baseline at the federal level for protections from unnecessary and unfair searches. Police officers usually follow necessary procedures to obtain search warrants from judges. However, they can conduct searches as necessary in limited circumstances.
Police officers might try to justify a search of private property, a vehicle or a person by asserting that they have probable cause. If they did not have probable cause, then the search may have been a violation of an individual’s rights.
What constitutes probable cause?
Establishing probable cause is actually more challenging than people may realize. Generalized suspicions, a person being present in a high-crime neighborhood or an officer’s gut feeling that something is wrong do not provide the probable cause necessary to conduct a search.
Police officers must have a credible reason to suspect a specific crime has occurred. They need to be able to articulate that suspicion to justify the search they conducted.
If officers did not have probable cause and instead simply went fishing for evidence, their conduct may render whatever evidence they obtained unusable in court. A defense attorney can challenge the use of evidence secured through violations of the law of a defendant’s civil rights.
People who question the conduct of police officers may need help as they prepare to respond to their criminal charges. Reviewing the behavior of police officers with a skilled legal team could help people verify whether a search may have been illegal.