David Luke Rocco : An Innocent Man

Hey, Professor Farris, according to the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department any search or seizure without a warrant must be justified and supported by clear, convincing and articulable facts. Officers must be prepared to justify any and all warrantless searches. A search without a warrant has consistently been found by the courts to be preemptively unreasonable, and therefore invalid, absent specific and articulable facts. If an experienced officer has the reasonable suspicions can articulate to a set of facts and circumstances that criminal activity may be afoot and make rational inferences. (Booker, 2015) The officer must have probable cause under any circumstances that would lead a reasonable man to believe that it is more likely than not a certain individual has committed or is committing an absolute crime. Officers may search vehicles when there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle. The vehicles need only to show inherent mobility rather than actual mobility. The search can be made immediately or delayed as long as probable cause existed even if the vehicle has been impounded and immobilized. An officer may search in any place that the object of the search may reasonably be found. This includes locked containers. Probable cause must be item specific. Probable cause for arrest is not probable cause for a search. Probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search has to be just as sufficient as probable cause to support

The reason why the exclusionary rule exist was to eliminate evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Basically stating that evidence would be admissible in court if a police officer found it in the crime scene under the correct procedures. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protects people against unreasonable search and seizures by the police force. The exclusionary rule is a court made rule and not in any of the statutes. The legislative bodies did not created it, but rather by the United States Supreme Court. The Exclusionary Rule also affects in federal courts with the advantage of the Fourth Amendment. Police misconduct plays a key role in the exclusionary rule and if there wasn’t misconduct within our police department, the rule would not exist today. It is the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant, not the responsibility of the citizen. With the exclusionary rule in effect in all fifty states of the United States, a citizen who is convicted of a crime has the possibility of won’t be convicted because of obtaining evidence without a warrant or police tampering with evidence. Going through the procedures of having probable cause or obtaining warrants to search an individual or place is the government's responsibility. The exclusionary rule is used to give individuals

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

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

Evidence that is illegally obtained cannot be used in a criminal trial and officers must have a valid warrant before conducting searches or seizing evidence (Weeks v. U.S., 1914).

The Exclusionary rule, as defined in our Criminal Justice Book: 7e, is the principle that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from trial. If any evidence, that falls within the field of the exclusionary rule, is found that would otherwise not have been found by law enforcements, the rule applies to linked evidence found and all the evidence after. This after evidence is often referred as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The exclusionary rule is also looked at in a way to block law enforcement officers from handling searches and/or seizures, a violation of the fourth amendment, possibly aiding to defendants whose rights have been violated.

Second, there must be probable cause to believe that the items sought are connected to criminal activity (Hall, 2016.) When a search warrant is granted then there needs to be probable cause that is connected to the criminal act in which we are able to find more evidence to prosecute the criminal.

A police officer is dispatched to a call in his jurisdiction for a noise complaint. The police officer arrives hearing very loud music coming from the residence which violates a noise ordinance. The police officer knocks on the front door with no answer so he proceeds to the back door to knock when he observes what appears to be marijuana plants based on his training and experience. The police officer can seize the marijuana plants based on the Plain View Doctrine. “In Harris v. United States (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that anything a police officer sees in plain view, when the officer has a right to be where he or she is, is not the product of a search and is therefore admissible as evidence.” [1] The

When it comes to Search and Seizure, allot of people think that law enforcement should not be allowed to search or seize property. I have heard many arguments against this subject, people stating that law enforcement officers go too far or have no right to search someone’s property such as their vehicle. Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion it requires that a combination of facts makes it more likely than not that items sought are where police believe them to be. In addition to establishing probable cause for a search, a warrant must contain the reasons for obtaining it, the names of people presenting the affidavits, what is specifically being sought and the signature of the judge issuing it.

A detention is reasonable when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, under the totality of the circumstance, provide an objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224.) As such, an investigatory stop based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is an unlawful seizure, even though the officer may be acting in good faith. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.) Nonetheless, reasonable suspicion cannot be justified after the fact by evidence of criminal activity uncovered during the course of the detention. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788.) Moreover, mere proximity cannot be enough to create reasonable suspicion because proximity

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for driving with expired license plates. Once pulled over for operating the vehicle without valid registration, the officer discovered that Riley also had a suspended license. Following police policy for suspended licenses, the officer impounded Riley’s car. At that point another officer performed a mandatory inventory search of the car that led to the discovery of two handguns under the hood of the vehicle. Police proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of loaded firearms. The arresting officer also found and seized a cell phone in Riley’s possession along with items associated with the “Bloods” street gang. Photographs and videos accessed on the cell phone connected Riley to the

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.

“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim . . . . Instead, the rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). They are saying is that the need for the rule is to deter illegal techniques that police use to obtain evidence, not to simply give more rights to the defendant. As Estreicher and Weick pointed out, “all of the cases since Wolf requiring the exclusion of illegal evidence have been base on the necessity for an effective deterrent to illegal police action” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). So instead of looking at the exclusionary rule as the end-all-right that citizens are

Determining for sure whether there are grounds to object to the search and seizure requires review of all of the reports regarding the case. Depending on the nature and quantity of the drugs seized, this could possibly be a serious case. In any event, the person involved should consult with a criminal defense attorney or, if he cannot afford private counsel, with the public defender if he is charged.

Is the warrantless search and seizure of Elliot Watson, who was arrested for possession of Marijuana with the intent to distribute, after being detained by Officer Johnson who was on the lookout for a vehicle and kidnapper with the same vehicle and clothing description as Mr. Watsons’ sports coupe car and 5 foot 9 inches tall, brown hair, and brown eyes wearing a white tee-shirt and blue jeans, legal?