Question 1 Did the police violate the 4th amendment by concluding an illegal surveillance? Explain your answer. Answer 1 To avoid illegal searching and seizing the property of a suspect, law officers, police officers obtain  search warrants. To get a  search warrant, officers must show  probable cause, must support the asking by oath or affirmation, and must describe the place to be searched and the items intended to be seized. By examining the totality of the circumstances, the judges can find probable cause. Yes, the police violated the 4th amendment by conducting an illegal surveillance (courts, 2010). There should have been a proper process, which would involve a search warrant to search Sam. Further, peeping through an air vent is a pure violation of my client Sam under amendment 4,5, and 6. Searching, peeping and asking Sam to remove his clothes amounts to illegal surveillance and violated the 4th amendment. Question 2 Was the search of his backpack illegal under the 4th amendment? Explain your answer. Answer 2 Amendment 4, related to right of privacy in context to search and seizures. It was held, if any, unusual conduct is observed by an officer, which gives him the opportunity to reasonably conclude that a criminal activity may be afoot, an officer may stop the person suspected and make reasonable inquiries with an aim to confirm or dispel the officer's suspicions. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993). The counter side is that the 4th Amendment does permit seizures and searches that are considered reasonable. This means that, police may override the rights to privacy and may search or seize any documents, any personal property etc, if: - the police have  probable cause  to believe as an evidence can be found that states that you have committed a crime, and a search warrant is issued by the judge - the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being