THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL WARRANTS UNDER WHICH THE ENGLISH CROWN ALLOWED COLONIAL CUSTOMS OFFICIALS TO SEARCH ANYWHERE FOR GOODS IMPORTED INTO THE COLONIES IN VIOLATION OF BRITISH TAX LAWS. HOWEVER, A 1789 CUSTOMS STATUTE PROVIDED FOR WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF VESSELS AND SHIPS, THUS OUTLINING THE FIRST EXCEPTION TO THE FOURTH AMENDMET REQUIREMENT OF A SEARCH WARRANT. IN 1914, THE FIRST MAJOR EXCEPTION, WHICH ALLOWS WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE INCIDENT TO ARREST, WAS STATED. IT WAS EMBELLISHED 10 YEARS LATER IN A DECISION WHICH AUTHORIZED FEDERAL PROHIBITION AGENTS TO STOP, SEARCH, AND SEIZE, WITHOUT A WARRANT, AN AUTOMOBILE BELIEVED TO BE TRANSPORTING BOOTLEG LIQUOR. OTHER EXCEPTIONS WHICH HAVE DEVELOPED INCLUDE: HOT PURSUIT, THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE, THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, AND CONSENT. ANY SEARCH, TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL, MUST BE FOUND TO BE REASONABLE. MANY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT SHOULD REMAIN TIGHTLY RESTRICTED AND CLEARLY DRAWN. THE REASONING IN A DECISION OFTEN REVOLVES AROUND THE CITIZEN'S EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY. IN HIS OWN HOME, THESE EXPECTATIONS ARE HIGH, AND ONLY A SEARCH WARRANT CAN JUSTIFY AN INTRUSION IN OTHER SITUATIONS, SUCH AS A ROUTINE CUSTOMS SEARCH, PRIVACY EXPECTATIONS ARE NOT COMMONLY HELD, AND WARRANTLESS SEARCH MAY BE PERMISSIBLE. EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS THE POSSIBILITY OF REMOVAL OV EVIDENCE MUST BE PROVEN FOR AN EXCEPTION TO BE MADE, AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS UPON THE PARTY REQUESTING THE EXCEPTION. (VDA)