No, not unless they have reason to be suspicion
Answer:
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
Thxx man can I have brainliest too
<u>Fourth Amendment Law Enforcement explained below: </u>
- The Fourth Amendment permits the right to be free from non-reasonable searches by the government.
- The government should complete an analysis of the commitment of crime that had taken place before the search warrant to be given.
- They also have permission to search the area whether the area has done any illegal things.
- The government is much more careful in protecting the law right to liberty and they are so consciousness in not disturbing the normal people.
Answer:
a legal brief can be can be a formal written argument to a court
