Search and seizure

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."

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.

[6]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.

There are, however, several exceptions to this rule, based on the language of the fourth amendment that the people are to be "secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures".

Police officers are not technically required to advise a suspect that he may refuse, however this policy depends on the specific rules of the department.

For example, courts have found that a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in information transferred to a third party, such as writing on the outside of an envelope sent through the mail or left for pick-up in an area where others might view it.

Exigent circumstances may also exist where there is a continuing danger, or where officers have a reasonable belief that people in need of assistance are present.

Only those searches that meet with certainty each of the minimal measured requirements of the following four doctrines are likely to stand unchallenged in court.

Law enforcement compliance with those requirements is scrutinized prior to the issuance of a warrant being granted or denied by an officiating judicial authority.

In corporate and administrative law, there has been an evolution of Supreme Court interpretation in favor of stronger government in regards to investigatory power.

[19][20] In Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co.,[21] the Supreme Court ruled that the FTC, while having been granted a broad subpoena power, did not have the right to a general "fishing expedition" into the private papers, to search both relevant and irrelevant, hoping that something would come up.