Final answer:
Recent controversies in 'search and seizure' involve interpretations of the Fourth Amendment and circumstances that challenge the standard warrant requirement, with landmark cases and rulings continually shaping the legal landscape regarding privacy and law enforcement.
Step-by-step explanation:
A recent controversy that has tested the constitutional definition of 'search and seizure' pertains to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment protects individuals from illegal searches and seizures, dictating that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before searching an individual or their property.
In landmark cases such as Mapp v. Ohio and Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court has reinforced the idea that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court, a principle known as the exclusionary rule. Despite the clear requirements of the Fourth Amendment, recent rulings have established exceptions to the warrant requirement under certain circumstances, which have continued to shape and challenge our understanding of reasonable expectations of privacy.