Criminology

The U.S. Constitution provides for the respect of all citizens privacy and freedom from arbitrary invasions. Everyone has the right to privacy which should not be assaulted through searches by law enforcement agents or other government employees unless there is a probable cause. Unless under extraordinary circumstances, law enforcement agents are expected to seek the consent to search from the owners of the property to be searched. Evidence gathered through involuntary searches is often inadmissible in court.

Consent to Search
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated This provision ensures that government employees do not assault peoples right to privacy unnecessarily or without following the laid-down procedures (Legal Information Insitute, n.d).

It is common for law enforcement agents to seek court warrants to search a property suspected to host criminal activity or to endanger the safety of the general public. There are however instances in which the government employees or law enforcement agents neither need nor seek for a probable cause or a search warrant in order to search someones property. Such a circumstance could arise when an individual gives the officers the free and voluntary consent to search the premises or property. It must be noted that the individual must not be put under pressure to give the consent as this would render the search unreasonable and any evidence gathered during an involuntary search can be dismissed by the courts. Individuals should therefore be reminded of their right to refuse to give the consent upfront or to revoke the consent during the search process. The search is supposed to be discontinued as soon as the individual withdraws the consent. The right to withdraw consent may however be unacceptable during passenger screenings at the airport. Although evidence collected during an involuntary search can be dismissed in court, the same evidence can be used against the individual if the consent was given voluntarily.

When individuals give the consent for their property to be searched, they practically and voluntarily waive their Fourth Amendment rights to allow the officers to conduct a search. A law enforcement agent or other government employee should not be the one to withdraw these rights from the individuals using such techniques as coercion or deceit.

The consent to search a property or premises can only be given by individuals who are the ones to be searched, the registered owners of the property, have the authority to give or decline to give consent for the search, or a combination of the factors (Strickland, 1966). For instance, a traffic police officer who intends to search a vehicle which is being driven not by the registered owner but by another person may seek consent to search the vehicle from the driver or from the registered owner. An individual may not give consent to officers to search anothers property. Hotel managements, although reserving the right to enter occupied hotel rooms for hotel-related business, may not give the consent to search an occupants property.

Third party consent may be sought and accepted on condition that the property to be searched is shared, meaning that the consenting party shares authority to give consent to the search. This is particularly common among room-mates who may share equal authority to give consent for a search. One party can give consent to a search even when the other party is physically absent. The situation gets complicated when one party gives consent while the other objects. In such instances, it is required that the objecting parties express their objection prior to the search (Williams, 2007).