skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 99059 Find in a Library
Title: Warrant Clause - The Key to the Castle
Journal: Federal Probation  Volume:49  Issue:1  Dated:(March 1985)  Pages:65-69
Author(s): L O Schroeder
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 5
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Document: PDF
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article explains the rationale for fourth amendment privacy rights, standards for determining when State interests outweigh citizen privacy interests, and the exclusionary rule, with attention to recent pertinent changes mandated by U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Abstract: The fourth amendment protects privacy by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures of private property by State officials. State interests outweigh privacy interests when there is probable cause to believe that a crime occurred or evidence of a crime is located at the place to be searched. Magistrates issue a search warrant when they believe that such probable cause exists. The warrant also protects privacy rights, however, by limiting the area to be searched and the things or persons to be seized. Privacy rights are enforced largely through the use of the exclusionary rule, which excludes invalidly obtained evidence from consideration by the court. In recent rulings, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has made the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence more difficult. There are occasions when persons and property may be seized by the State without a warrant. Arrest in a public place based upon a police officer's reasonable belief that the arrestee has committed a crime does not require a warrant, and the most common warrantless search is that conducted in association with an arrest. Probation and parole officers as well as child protection workers operate under standards that permit warrantless searches and seizures associated with their work. Administrative warrants required for the inspection of businesses for noncriminal safety violations do not require the same showing of probable cause required in criminal investigations. Twenty-eight footnotes are provided.
Index Term(s): Administrative searches; Exclusionary rule; Probable cause; Right of privacy; Search warrants; US Supreme Court decisions; Warrantless search
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.