Importance Of Privacy In Criminal Cases

In criminal cases, there is always a need for evidence to convict the suspected criminal of breaking the law; however, because people have an expectation of privacy, warrants, legal permission to obtain evidence, are required before searching and/or seizing someone's things, writings, electronic data, etc. without the permission of the person being targeted. Before a warrant can be issued, there must be probable cause, sufficient reason to believe that a person committed a crime, present. This prevents people's privacy from being violated unnecessarily; however, there are some exceptions to this requirement. If the situation is deemed an emergency, then a warrant is not required, which means that it is possible that a person's right to privacy could be violated regardless of the warrant
What type of search/seizure constitutes an encroachment on a person's privacy is also a concern regarding warrant requirements; the reason warrants are needed are to protect people's privacy, but if the search/seizure does not constitute an invasion of privacy, then a warrant is no longer required (e.g. A warrant is not needed to use hair color as evidence since it is not private information.). In a DUI case in Missouri, a highway patrolman forced a blood test to check the BAC levels of a speeding driver, but he did so without obtaining a warrant. Though the suspect was convicted of DUI, the judge of the case threw out the blood test citing the fact that it was obtained without a warrant, invalidating it.; however, the state appealed it because, according to it, the situation was an emergency since BAC levels decrease after a person stops drinking, meaning evidence was being destroyed every moment before the blood test, though this had never presented the patrolman an obstacle in the past. Drawing blood along with other bodily intrusions are considered to be bodily searches, so warrants are typically required to perform such