Exigent Circumstances Definition

Legal Reasoning: The ultimatum of the Fourth Amendment is whether the search was reasonable. The Supreme Court upheld that a warrant is generally required to search a home. Warrantless searches are not reasonable when two co-tenants are present and one of the tenants objects. However, the court held that a same search is reasonable when the opposing tenant is not present. Since the opposing tenant; Fernandez, was arrested and not present, the court affirmed that the search was reasonable

Granted, the Los Angeles Police Department did not have the necessary search warrant to search the Hughes residence for Ronnie O’Dell. Also, there are a lot of stipulations and grey areas when it comes to what deems necessary force with the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule. Moreover, the Los Angeles Police Officers did announce their presence initially when they entered on the property. However, they did not abide to the, “knock-and-announce,” rule on separate living areas of the same property. Interestingly, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that the officers did indeed violate the Fourth Amendment; however, they did away with the “knock-and-announce,” ruling because they did announce their presence on the property, just not at the separate areas. In the end, they did hold the officers liable to the Ninth Circuit provocation rule, “That rule holds an officer liable for use of deadly force where the officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation via a Fourth Amendment violation”(https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/16-369). Even though the officers use of force was deemed necessary, they were still liable for the shooting under the Ninth Circuit provocation rule because they violated the Fourth

4. Consent to search is an exception to the warrant; therefore the officer needs no justification to conduct a search pursuant to a valid consent. 5. Exigent circumstances is an exception to the warrant, it permits an officer to enter premises when there is a situation that requires immediate action. 6. Plain view doctrine is an exception to the warrant; it provides that an officer may seize an object without a warrant if the officer observes the object from the lawful vantage and if the nature of the object is immediately apparent as an article subject to seizure (Garland, 2011).

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

From what was brought to the Supreme Courts attention the police did everything properly, they knocked on the door loudly and told the tenants they were the police. If they do not do those two things the tenants may not hear them or they may not open the door because they do not know who it is. This is where the situation became exigent because then the tenants inside began running around and obviously destroying evidence. The police then shouted they were going to enter the apartment and busted the door down to get it. The respondent pointed to no evidence supporting his argument that the officers made any sort of demand to enter the apartment, much less a demand that amounts to a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment. The record was made clear that the officers’ announcement that they were going to enter the apartment was made after the exigency arose, therefore everything that happened was just.

Similarly, in case two, the police were in search of a man in order to question him about a recent bombing. So they asked a woman if they were able to search their house without a warrant. Eventually, they intruded the woman’s house because of suspicion. However, the officers had no right to enter the woman's home because they did not have a search

In the case of Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 the court dismissed the charge the based on information in error. Therefore the illegal drugs that were found on the premises during the search had to be thrown out based on the poisonous fruit. Does the warranty at 10 did not have the drugs in the actual warrant on which they were looking for. Indeed, applying the exclusionary rule to warrant searches may well reduce incentives for police to utilize the preferred warrant procedure when a warrantless search may be permissible under one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement. See ante, at 236; Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S., at 611, and n. 3 (POWELL, J., concurring in part); P. Johnson, New Approaches to Enforcing the Fourth Amendment 11 (unpublished paper, 1978). See also United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 316-317 (1972); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102,

Thus, this leaves this determination up to the courts to decide case by case. Probable cause quantitates specific levels of suspicion and is based on facts and prudent belief of guilt, thus allowing a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search. Probable cause is more substantial than reasonable suspicion pertaining to the justification for an investigative detention. (Devallis Rutledge, 2010).

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.

Describe what exigent circumstances mean and at least 2 examples of when this could apply The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits law enforcement officers from illegally searching and/or seizing evidence from a search. This provision outlaws the search and seizures without probable cause or without a warrant to conduct searches and seizures. It implies therefore that at very basic level, every citizen is guaranteed a reasonable amount of privacy based on the premise that citizens are free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Exigent circumstances is one of the few exceptions accepted by the courts that would override somebody’s fourth amendment right. Over the years through the case laws, some situations have become more prominent to be considered “exigent” than others. The following scenario will show a situation where one of this circumstances might apply to subsequently argument about the reasoning and the legality behind the application of the exception in said scenario.

It is vital for law enforcement to determine whether a search warrant, arrest warrant, or both is needed. When an arrest is to take place within a dwelling where reasonable privacy is expected, law enforcement must determine whether or not the prospective arrestee lives there. If the person to be arrested lives there, only an arrest warrant is needed. If the dwelling belongs to a third party, an arrest warrant and a search warrant is necessary. In order to comply with the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy, police must secure the appropriate warrant(s) and knock and announce their presence.

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a