The 4th Amendment protects American citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If violated by the government, all evidence found by the illegal search and seizure must be excluded pursuant to the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th Amendment violations. Before a remedy can be granted for a 4th Amendment violation, a court must determine whether the 4th Amendment is applicable to a given case. The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure through government action. This action applies to the conduct of government officials such as police, fire, or a person engaged as a private government actor. Once the first criterion is met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area considered by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These locations could be homes or a closed telephone box depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes the personal belongings of a person or the individual themselves. That said, the government can still carry out searches and seizures if certain steps are followed correctly. Searches and seizures require a specific warrant drawn up by a detached and neutral magistrate based on probable cause. This warrant requirement may be waived depending on the circumstances of the incident. Some examples of this include the automobile exception, emergencies, pre-arrest incidental searches, and emergency circumstances. Police can also make arrests without a warrant provided they have probable cause before the arrest. In this...... middle of paper ...... placed the car in places where contraband would not normally be found, but this was unrelated to the discovery of the cocaine. The weapons found at the ranch are admissible because agents had a warrant to search the ranch for drugs and weapons. The Lamborghini is not admissible because it was not covered by the warrant and the VID number was not in plain sight of the officer conducting the search. The statement made regarding the search for Snow White would not be admissible in court because Officer Smith stopped Doe and began asking Doe questions about Doe's crime before Doe was read her Miranda rights. Finally, the statement Doe made about her supplier would be admissible in court because Doe read her Miranda rights and acknowledged her understanding of the rights and then made a voluntary confession without any coercion from the officers involved..