Automobile Incident To Law Arrest

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

Whether a law enforcement officer was justified in acting in the absence of a warrant depends on the “totality of circumstances.” The United States Supreme Court uses a “careful case-by-case” approach to determine whether circumstances rose to the required level of exigency. Recognized exigent circumstances that justify warrantless entry may include, but are not limited to: entering to provide emergency aid to someone inside, pursuant to an immediate threat to officer safety, in “‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect,” “to put out a fire and investigate its cause,” and to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence of a serious crime. While circumstances that present the requisite exigency to justify a warrantless search differ, “in each

Cases R v Park (1994) where procedures laid down in the PACE Act were not followed properly and evidence could not be submitted. Also R v Fenlley [1989] in which the defendant had not been informed properly of the reason for stop and search can lead to suspects being unable to be prosecuted. It is hard to justify these results and describe the use of stop and searches as a valuable tool in the detection of crime. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence from reports, cases and statistical information showing the disproportionate amount of Black and Asian individuals that are stopped and searched under section 1 of PACE 1984. This has led to issues arising between the police and the community.

While searching an automobile there is a different standard. For example, in the case Chimel v. California, the automobile was a ?movable scene of crime.? Evidence could be gone by the time a warrant could be issued. In California v. Acevedo, 1991, the court set down a rule that covers all automobile searches. It was ruled that, ?when ever police lawfully stops a car, they do not need a warrant to search anything in that vehicle that they do not have a reason to believe holds evidence of a crime.? (Grolier Encyclopedia)

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

Fourth, the facts that are alleged to establish probable cause must “supported by Oath or affirmation” (Hall, 2016.) In a

When an officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009).

As a consequence, illegally seized evidence cannot be used against the suspect, and the suspect can be released, and evidence dismissed even if the officer knows the suspect is guilty of the crime. Nevertheless, under certain

Finally, consent search very supportive to police officer when they get consent to search the person property because instead of having the police officer getting warrant they can just search specific place for instances like a truck of a vehicle. For example, Strauss, Rebecca. Author of “We can do this the Easy Way Or the Hard Way: The use of Deceit to Induce Consent Searches." States, “Once the owner agrees to the search, the police have received consent to search any area in his home where they reasonably may find evidence of the crime they claimed to be investigating. Consent search is like general warrant fails to meet the fourth amendment particularity requirement because it to general. Strauss, Rebecca also states, “Like general warrants,

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

New York vs Belton gave officers the power to search a vehicle during an arrest as long as the person arrested stayed on the scene of the arrest and the search performed in a timely manner to the arrest, even if the person arrested cannot gain access the

When a court decides whether or not to issue a search warrant, the elements of the informant’s credibility/reliability and basis of knowledge are to be used as guides when considering the totality of the circumstances and are

Officer had probable cause to affect a traffic stop after he observed defendant following too closely. Defendant's and passenger's behavior after stop provided reasonable suspicion to expand the detention, and a positive drug dog sniff provided basis for search of vehicle.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holds that when officers receive consent to search with no limitations, only spaces and containers that appear to “obviously” not belong to the consenter are excepted from their search. See, e.g., Synpe, 441 F.3d at 136-37. The Seventh Circuit holds similarly that if officers do not have “positive knowledge” that the consenter does not have authority over the space or container prior to the search, then the search is reasonable. See, e.g., Melgar, 227 F.3d at

Good Faith is the last exception. In this case, the magistrate issues a seizure warrant for acquiring evidence. However, this may not be in sync with the role of the exclusionary rule in deterring the police from any misconduct and also the evidence suppression may not occur. The limitation of this exception is that, if the defense can convince the judge that the officer was reckless in seizing the evidence, then the good faith will be nullified.