Search & Seizure

Search & Seizure

Introduction

This paper discusses the case of Martinez-Fuerte in regards to the 4th Amendment. This consequently resulted in discontinuation of search and seizure at border. The courts favored the case of search and seizure despite of public questioning. Some people regarded it as the violation to human rights of privacy due to certain reasons. Thus, the issues and challenges experienced by this case is also elaborated in this paper.

Discussion

Key issues in Search and Seizure

Martinez-Fuerte (1975) was a choice of the United States Supreme Court that permitted the United States Border Patrol to set up perpetual or altered checkpoints on public highways from the Mexican perimeter. This verification points are not regarded as violation of the Fourth Amendment according to Martinez-Fuerte. Simply stated, Fourth Amendment of US Constitution is related to the border patrolling, which is involved in the constant checking of vehicles on checkpoints established by the Government for security reasons (Steinberg, 2004). It is interlinked with the Mexican borders on highways. Permanent or fixed checkpoints are built on these highways for checking purpose. There are various issues and challenges faced in search and seizure. People retaliate to unnecessary stopping and checking frequently. It was considered as an intrusion in human rights of privacy. The frequent and constant checking was the concern of citizens who regard it as nuisance.

The purpose for development of checkpoints was the practice to provide security. However, such stops of vehicles should be based on suspicions. This was considered impractical due to the fact that it is impossible to check every car because of heavy and speeding traffic on highways. This can complicate the study of each and every car individually. Similarly, the car stopped by authorities for checking might blame the patrolling police for their suspicion on particular car instead of every other car. This was one of the key issues in search seizure. Thus, there was a need of authorized decision from the government to allow the police to check cars as per requirements.

Specific Facts of Case

The consequent intrusion was rendered problematic by the people while the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great. The concerns for government to increase the security measures on borders were challenging in a sense that some people opposed the constant stopping of vehicles. The history of case holds the story of two convict which entered the States from Mexico and stopped at intersection checkpoint for search. They were questioned about their identity and both admitted to confirmation. However, both accused the patrolling to interfere with the 4th Amendment of Constitution. This created a case under the courts. Finally, it was concluded that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment.

There are various specific facts related to this case. The courts ruled by a majority supporting the decision of checkpoints on various locations on highways. This can significantly reduce the number of illegal immigration and smuggling. The endeavors to control these problems ...