Prohibition of Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

"No person shall be subject to an unreasonable search or seizure of their house, their person, or their effects".

With this right, if a Court of law rules that a search or seizure was unreasonable (and thus illegal), then any evidence, contraband, etc... that is discovered from that "unreasonable search or seizure" shall be inadmissable as evidence in a criminal proceeding.

 

John Z Apr 6, 2015

"No person shall be subject to an unreasonable search or seizure of their house, their person, or their effects".

Any thoughts anyone?

Eser Utku Apr 10, 2015

Hi John,

I think this is good - and the votes show that other people think so too. This is also currently a right that we have (although, I have read that its application to the more vulnerable sections of the society is less than desirable). As far as I know: The police cannot, for example, tap your phone and intercept your communication without assent from the judiciary and this is generally given for a limited amount of time. In some places (perhaps not in UK - not sure) they have to stop listening after a given period if the call does not relate to the supposed criminal action. In general though the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through illegal means (not just relating to unlawful search and seizure) is standard jurisprudence and should be easily inferred from judicial precedence even if the constitution does not specifically state it

John Z Apr 10, 2015

True, but the importance of this being in the Constitution is to ensure that a future rogue Judiciary or rogue Parliament does not attempt to limit this "right".

Andrew Bulovsky Apr 13, 2015

Thank you for posting the proposed language, John! 

Eserutku2013, do you have other thoughts on this?

Users tagged:

Share