state police. This raised serious doubts about the admissibility of the evidence since it was
unclear who it was gathered for, the state or the company.
They considered the mall securities activity was directly tied to the interests of the state,
and therefore the court found that the evidence was inadmissible due to the search's violation of
Santiago's 4th amendment rights. The courts have acknowledged, in certain cases, that a private
citizen's search and seizure may be attributed to the government. It's possible that the
exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment might come into play in this situation.
As explained in State v. Santiago (2009), courts use the "state action" approach to
examine whether a private actor's disputed activity may be reasonably seen as if it came directly
from the State. Since Santiago's arrest was for a brawl and not stealing, mall security had no right
to look for proof of theft. The cocaine bottle did nothing to protect the company's bottom line or
advance the company's goals. In light of this, "these acts indicate an intention to assist law
enforcement efforts by securing evidence of a drug crime" (State v. Santiago, 2009).
Several criteria may be used to establish a connection between private and government
entities for the purposes of applying the exclusionary rule. There are two factors to consider in
this case: first, whether or not the government "knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct,"
and second, whether or not "the party performing the search intended to assist law enforcement
efforts or to further his own ends" (State v. Santiago).Given that private security firms perform
potentially lethal, all-encompassing activities identical to those of public police and, more often
than not, in support of state and federal functions, it is perplexing that they are not often subject
to the same norms and regulations. Without proper checks and balances in place to control the
private sector, people' rights may be violated.