Errors When Searching A Vehicle

In other words, giving consent to an officer gives him/her permission to look through your personal possessions and what evidence he/she is allowed to take during the search and can be used against you in the court of law. Unless the consent is limited, they can search anywhere in the passenger compartment, including hidden places and containers. That means behind the door panels, speakers, or dash area.

The fourth amendment commands the use of warrants. As previously stated, warrants usually consist of three elements to meet the fourth amendment standard. This standard is important to uphold so that in fact evidence can be permissible in court. I believe the knock and announce rule is a truly effective procedure because this standard can protect officers from injury and more than likely preserve physical evidence from being destroyed. This is also a valuable tool in preventing a high risk target from escaping the scene. As follows, searches incident to arrest does not require a warrant if the search is in the radius of the suspect. The officer may search the surrounding area for illegal contraband or weapons. Ultimately, to protect the officers around as well as to collect valuable evidence. As for motor vehicle stops, these instances typically do not need a warrant if the officer is to believe under reasonable suspicion illegal substances are being concealed within the vehicle. The standard of privacy is lower because the vehicle is out in public and thus is at greater risk of being searched. Wyoming v. Houghton is an interesting case involving a motor vehicle search. The defendant, Houghton was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine. However, being that the officer suspected the driver of suspicion, the officer had no entitlement to search the defendant’s purse for contraband; ultimately, violating the

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,

Holding: No, the police are authorized to search a vehicle incident to an arrest only when the person being arrested is unsecured and within reaching distance of the vehicle’s passenger compartment at the time the search is conducted.

Stop & Frisk- if the police officer has reasonable suspicion that a criminal act took place or is about take place he can search the suspect. If the police officer believes they are arm and dangerous. It is a bit less serious than probable cause. An example can be Johnny is walking down the street with a set of pliers in his

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

This rule limited the authority of officers in their scope of search of an automobile. A Search Incident to Law Arrest no longer authorize a vehicle search incident to every occupant’s arrest.

A frisk does not meet the standards of a search because the officer is not looking for evidence of a crime. The purpose of the frisk is for officer safety and conducted for the sole purpose of determining if the subject has a weapon on their person. The scope of the frisk can include places the subject had immediate access to when the reasonable suspicion was developed by the officer. A good example of this would be a purse.

When it comes to the Fourth Amendment and searching a person’s car or their person, there are a few factors to take into consideration. In order for an officer to search an individual’s car, they must have consent, otherwise the search is unreasonable and whatever evidence seized could be inadmissible in the court of law. However, it is possible to conduct a search without consent and seize evidence without a warrant but there ought to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The two differ in the sense that reasonable suspicion is based off past experiences and expertise. Probable cause is needed for a search to take place; conversely if there is no probable cause but an officer has enough reasonable suspicion, they still are allowed to

The officer did have reasonable suspicion to make contact and after locating the weapons he had his probable cause. There are four situations that Probable Cause is used; involving arrests with a warrant, arrests without a warrant, searched of items with a warrant, and searches of items without a warrant (V., D. C., & Walker, J. T., 2015). Most of my encounters with individuals occurs on traffic stops; which require probable cause to stop them. My probable cause could be speeding, reckless driving or any traffic violation in the traffic law manual. Once probable cause is established then contact is made with the driver. If there is reason to believe that there is more than a traffic violation, such as an officer smelling marijuana inside the vehicle, then he or she can now have access into the vehicle. My probable cause to get into the vehicle is based on my training and experience that there was or is illegal narcotics inside the vehicle. If there is no probable cause to get into the vehicle and an officer feels there is more to the traffic stop than speeding, then the officer needs to build his reasonable suspicion to figure out what the driver is up to. For example, one night on patrol, it was believed that there was a possible drug transaction going on in the

If they feel like someone might be carrying a weapon or drugs with them that might be illegal or harmful then they also have the right to check the person but in a manner that is allowed by the law. There is a need to clearly establish the rules and limitations when it comes to reasonable suspicion so that there are no issues when these policies are being applied. It is right for people to believe that the law enforcement has gained enough experience to point out when something or someone seems suspicious. It is exactly this experience that then forms the basis of their reasonable doubt which is why the law has allowed them to act but there are still some limitations obviously to make sure that the rights of any individual are not threatened.

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.

It would be true that once an officer has conducted a pat down search and determined that there are no weapons, he is not allowed to go further in searching without either consent or a warrant. On the other hand, it is not the law anywhere that such a search must be limited to the feel of a gun. Any object which might possibly be used as a weapon can be

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).

When they search without a warrant they could do a voluntary search in which you freely give them permission to go ahead and conduct the search and you can‘t be tricked or coerced into giving the consent. The police can conduct various types of searches such as when you are being arrested the police have the right to go ahead and conduct a search of your immediate areas some people say it can only go as far as the wingspan on your arms but others beg to differ. Another is the inventory search in which they go through all your stuff to make a list of all the items you have that