There is a key term under the protection of the Fourth Amendment that provides many American citizens with privacy and protection against unlawful intrusions upon their personal property and person. The phrase that guarantees these rights is that of "unreasonable search and seizures." Therefore, if you feel that your rights have been violated by anyone in a government capacity, here is some information that might guide you while making an informed decision.

Due to this law, which clearly states the rights of any American citizen, the Supreme Court needed to create a clear definition of what the expectations of the people could be with in reference to rights and privacy policies; therefore, they derived these questions that could be asked in any circumstance to help the appropriate parties know if they had been infringed:

• Would society agree that the object, thing, or place should be labeled as private?
• Is the expectation of the object being searched reasonable?
• Subjectively speaking, did the person believe the searched object to be private?
• Did the person believe that the searched place or thing would or should remain private?

A person who is not a government official who illegally performs an unreasonable search is not under any restrictions of the Fourth Amendment; it only pertains to government officials. People who are not government officials that perform acts that invade privacy are most likely breaking other laws. Yet, if a government official uses evidence in a court room where a search warrant was not legally obtained the exclusionary rule is in effect. That means that the officer is not lawfully allowed to use this evidence against the person. This being the case, the fruit of the poisonous tree rule is also in effect: which reports that if a government official commits an illegal act such as an unreasonable search and seizure, any evidence that is found that might give the officer additional evidence is restricted from being used. One source alleges that this gives a police officer more reason to refrain from conducting illegal search and seizures.

This rule, what many people may not be aware of is that personal property that illicit and in plain sight will not be restricted. Under this law, it is lawful for government officials to take something from a house or person when it is in their line of sight. One source gives an example of a front yard; if there is an illegal activity taking place there, though this is someone's personal property, whatever illegal event that has taken place can be used by a government official in their endeavor to charge someone and may be used legitimately as evidence in the court of law.

Besides government officials being restricted by the Fourth Amendment, attorneys also need to abide by these rules. One source alleges, that as servants of the state, prosecutors may not use the following facts obtained by an illegal search warrant: they may not use evidence which may correspond to civil and immigration cases, but the evidence may be used to attack the reputation of a witness in certain events. The only person who may consider using unreasonable search and seizure findings is a judge, but by law, it must be used only after the trial has ended, and the conviction announced. The rules of the Fourth Amendment are very clear, and though most jurisdictions have different legal regulations for sentencing and charges, this cannot be changed or misrepresented in any legal proceedings.