It is not secret that rights of people can be violated because of deception of law enforcement officers. There are many reasons for this, but in the United States the main one is probably the due to the factor of personal responsibility of officer. Law enforcement officers often times have to use deception and other covert techniques to gain access into a suspects dwelling or place of business. Police officers risk their lives everyday just by putting on that identifiable uniform. They deal with dangerous situations all the time and they see things that the average person would never see over the course of their life. A lot of the situations they face can be stressful, but they are trained to deal with them.

They have huge responsibilities to themselves and to the public, but some officers can be pig-headed and forget that they are not above the law. In trying to control situations, they sometimes take things to far and people get hurt. The laws of the United States can be hard to understand sometimes. The Fourth Amendment states that people have a right not to be searched without a reasonable warrant and that people have a right to feel secure in their homes. There are acts giving police permission to do what ever they need to keep drunks off the streets. There are also rules and regulations, kind of like a sports game, and, just like games, there are always ways to get around these rules.

Like finding it legal to randomly stop cars to give people breathalyzer tests, or entering peoples homes and searching for things without a warrant. According different study articles, officers may enter stores or offices and other places open to the public in order to investigate without violating the Fourth Amendment. There are several different types of deception often used by police officers to gain entrance to a nonpublic area. The tactic in question and under debate is the technique called coercive deception. This is where an officer relies on coercion to enter a premise.

One specific instance discussed is when an officer knocked on the door of a dwelling claiming to be with the gas company investigating a leak in the neighborhood. This is coercive because the occupant of the dwelling feels obligated to let the gas man in due to the severity of the denial of the request. It is my opinion that the consent search is a powerful tool for the police to gain access without going through the hassles of obtaining a warrant, especially when probable cause isnt present. If an officer can gain access into a persons dwelling to investigate without getting a warrant first, I think it is in their interest. My problem with the idea of consent searches falls into the premise of voluntariness. I think officers should inform the occupant of their right to deny the request for admittance.

The occupant of the dwelling has full right to deny the officers request, but often does not know it and can get burned by it later. I do not think this is one of those cases where policy should not protect the stupid. It is a case where officers are commonly taking advantage of the shortcomings of others, especially minorities who may be less informed of their rights, and entering their houses and private property to conduct illegal searches of evidence that is later used to incriminate them in a court of law. One day, not too long ago, police came into Doll ree Maps house without a search warrant and trashed it, looking for a bomb suspect. Finding nothing to that affect, the police realized they had the wrong house, but during their search for the suspect, they found some obscene material just in order to cover up their illegal actions. They arrested Map because of that.

Map went to court and appealed. In the end, justice had been served because the "material" the police obtained was illegally obtained, making the case end. The rule that saved Map was the Exclusionary Rule stating that anything police find that does not have anything to do with what the search warrant says has to be excluded from the case. The question here is should people allow police to go into their homes and search for whatever they want without a warrant? The answer is no. First of all, when the police do come to a house, they dont just politely knock and wait for somebody to answer. They break down the door and make a mess of the house.

If people are innocent, why should they have to get their door knocked down and their house messed up?