Should warrantless searches be allowed? Is it fair for a person to be pulled over for running a stop sign and have their automobile searched? The answer to these proposed questions are being decided by the Supreme Court. Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, individuals are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. Currently, there are many cases in front of the Supreme Court regarding search and seizure. This paper will look at the pros and cons of warrantless searches including two cases in favor of and two cases against the issue in question.

Although for the most part warrantless searches aren't allowed there are a few instances where they are permissible. One example of where a warrant is not necessary is when the officer is in "hot" pursuit (Mann 131). This means that if an officer is chasing an individual on foot or by car, he does not need a warrant to search the individual. If the individual of whom the search is directed toward consents, a warrant is not necessary (131). If an emergency should arise, an officer does not need a warrant (131). If a lawful arrest has taken place, the officer does not need a warrant (131).

Rosen, Jeffrey. "Search and Seize." New Republic. Vol. 212, Issue

Another way an officer does not need a warrant is if evidence of a crime is in plain view to the officer (131). Finally, if a delay would present a significant obstacle in the investigation, the officer does not need a warrant (131).

I guess the courts decide when a warrantless search is allowed even though the Constitution says the warrants are needed. In my opinion, warrantless searches should not be allowed. If I was walking down the street and a cop wanted to search me solely because I wear baggy clothes, he should not be allowed. The only time an officer should be allowed is if he sees someone kill or injure someone and a weapon goes in the suspect's pocket. The courts say that warrantless searches are permitted in certain instances based on the aforementioned circumstances like hot pursuit or consent. In the case of Sibron v. New York I agree with the courts decision to not allow the warrantless search. Just because a guy is talking with known drug addicts is no reason to search him. The bottom line is I wouldn't want to be searched without a reason or a warrant and the courts should apply that to every case

Jost, Kenneth. "Exclusionary Rule" ABA Journal. Vol. 81, (May

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Justice Stewart, John Knowles, Thomas Arkansas, Sibron York, Law Land, Belton York, According Amendment, Justice Warren, SEARCH SEIZURE, warrantless searches, supreme court, searches allowed, search car, probable cause, warrantless searches allowed, sibron york, warrant 131, warrantless search, officer warrant, exclusionary rule, officer warrant 131, edu/~crimdu/faganhtml online 1/14/99, courts found warrantless, supreme court ruled,
Approximate Word count = 1633
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)