In this document, an experienced federal official is allocated the job of an instructor, who is accountable for providing aid in educating and managing agents and police officers. My job is to aid the exercising authorities in preparing modules for a two week program which will consist of the subject relevant to search warrants, forth variation, potential cause, reasoning relevant to warrantless queries, etc. This important process is to give 30 authorities the information relevant to the types of queries and warrant searches. A warrant is somewhat of an authorization slip. It grants officers permission to search a particular place or area at a particular time and seize particular items. For example, if investigators from the local division believe you're engaged in trafficking or distributing cannabis out of your place of residency, they may ask a judge or magistrate for a warrant permitting them to search the residency and remove any drugs they find. The 4th Amendment states that queries must be reasonable and specific. A few of the warrant-less queries are approval queries, queries occurrence to arrest, queries during an investigative detention, vehicle queries, management queries, boat queries, boundary queries, and plain view queries.(Criminal Rights, 2008). The authorities can only look in the place described in a warrant and usually can only take the exact assets that are described in the warrant. The authorities cannot search for a home if the warrant identifies the lawn, nor can they search for weaponry if the warrant identifies cannabis vegetation. However, this does not mean that authorities can only take those products detailed in the warrant. If, in the course of their query, law enforcement comes across contraband or proof of illegal activity that is not detailed in the warrant, they can by law take the items that are not listed in the warrant. If the warrant identifies a certain individual to be explored, the authorities can search only that individual, unless they have separate cause to search individuals who are actually present on the property at the time of the warrant. If an officer has affordable doubt that an onlooker is involved in illegal action, the officer can only interrogate the onlooker and, if necessary for the officer's protection, perform a frisk for weaponry (but not perform an extensive search). Most queries happen without a warrant having to be issued. In decades time, the judges and magistrates have described a variety of circumstances in which a warrant is not necessary, either because the search is per se affordable under the conditions or because, due to a deficiency of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the 4th Amendment doesn't need to be implemented at all. These searches are called consent searches. If the owner or individual that resides at the property easily and willingly agrees to the search, the search is legitimate and whatever the authorities discover is acceptable as proof. Law enforcement does not have to notify individuals that they have a right to reject approval for a search. If law enforcement wrangles an approval through chicanery or coercion, the approval does not validate the search. However, an organization can agree to a search of organization property, which expands to a worker's workspace but not to personal places such as a worker's personal locker. A challenging perspective is that approval in these kinds of situations will be regarded legitimate if the police reasonably believe that the agreeing person has the power to approve, even if they really don't. Law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to look for and take contraband that is "in plain view" if the officer has a right to be where the contraband is first identified. For example, officers may look for and take contraband if they first identify the contraband from an aircraft or chopper, since the contraband is considered to be in plain sight. Another example is if an officer is walking by a car and spots contraband through the window of the car. A search may then be performed without a warrant. The same concept would be implemented if an officer is in the home for other legitimate factors and finds contraband on a desk or cupboard. These warrantless searches fall under the “The Plain View” Doctrine. There are also warrantless searches that are made in connection with an arrest. Law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to conduct a search "incident to an arrest." After an arrest, law enforcement has the right to secure themselves by looking for weaponry and to protect the lawful case against the suspect by looking for evidence that the suspect might try to damage or destroy. An emergency is another exception for a warrantless search. Here are a few examples of such emergencies. •An officer checks an injured motorist for possible injuries following a collision and finds illegal drugs.
•Following a street drug arrest, an officer enters the house after the suspect shouts into the house, "Eddie, quick, flush it!" The officer arrests Eddie and seizes the stash.
•A police officer on routine patrol hears shouts and screams coming from a residence, rushes in, and arrests a suspect for spousal abuse.
•A police officer "in hot pursuit" of a fleeing suspect continues the chase into the suspect's dwelling in order to make the arrest.

References http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law