Probable Cause In Law

probable cause is to be clearly established by law enforcement in order to conduct a legal search of your property or your person. Consent from the individual to allow the search can substitute the probable cause, if none exists for law enforcement to act upon. This is applicable to individual searches, vehicle searches and searches of your home or any other property.
For example, if law enforcement stops you exiting a convenience store and suspects you of shoplifting, they must first establish the probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain you lawfully. If this is done correctly, through either witness information or firsthand observation, then law enforcement can request a search of your property (e.g. backpack, pant pockets, etc.)

This is one of many exceptions to the 4th Amendment. Additional exceptions exist and have been accepted in exclusive circumstances. These exceptions are search incident to an arrest, plain view, stop and frisk (plain feel), hot pursuit/ exigent circumstance, and the automobile exception. The plain view doctrine allows a police officer to seize objects not described in a warrant when executing a lawful search or seizure if he observes the object in plain view and has probable cause to believe that it relates to criminal activities (Busby, 2009, para. 1). For example, if an officer is executing a legal search warrant of someone’s property and while looking for the listed property, the officer comes across other illegal evidence that is in plain view, the officer may seize that new evidence legally. The reasoning behind it is simply coincidental discovery, while the officer is there lawfully as per the search

Colorado (1949). The case details here state that Julius Wolf (the “petitioner”) was convicted by a State court of conspiring to commit abortions based upon evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause ("Case Brief Wolf v. Colorado," 1949, para. 1). In this case though, the question that was brought forth was, if the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments ("Case Brief Wolf v. Colorado," 1949, para. 1).The case argument was that if evidence was seized illegally in violation of the fourth amendment’s protection, does that violation clearly impede the rights protected under due process, which is the fourteenth amendment. No, due process is not denied when evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is admitted by a State court for a State offense. Unlike the requirements and restrictions placed by the Bill of Rights upon federal authorities, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution does not subject criminal justice in the States to certain limitations ("Case Brief Wolf v. Colorado," 1949, para. 5).In this case’s conclusion, it was stated that the fourth amendment protection still applied to any state case through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore the protection was just like at the federal