Exigent Circumstances In Court Cases

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

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).)

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”.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

The Court faced the question of whether the search of Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

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.

In exigent circumstances a warrant is not necessary to conduct a search if the circumstances at the time of the search are necessary to prevent physical harm, the concealment or destruction of evidence, or the escape of a suspect and there is not enough time to obtain a search warrant beforehand (codes of criminal procedure, n.d.).

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

Exigent (emergency) situations: Exigent circumstances can exist when the officer believes one or both of the requirements are present:

Since its inception, the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution have been expanding and evolving because of new technology. The Fourth Amendment generally protects us all from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, n.d., p. 1199). Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Riley v. California highlight how new technology can lead to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that alter the protections provided by this amendment (Hall, 2015). In 1968, the Supreme Court decision in Katz v. United States fundamentally changed the measure used to judge whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurs due to new technology being utilized by law enforcement. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of Riley v. California is a more relatable case, since it involves technology that the vast majority of us use everyday (Savage, 2014). This case changed the way law enforcement is able to legally search the cellphone of an arrestee, by strengthening the arrestee’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

The Good faith exception issued by the Supreme Court of the United States v. Leon recognized evidence that has been collected in violation of the privacy right protected by the Fourth Amendment to be used in a trial in case the police acted in good faith as answered on detective search warrant (Hall, 2014). During Leon case, the judge issued a warrant which was facially deficient, but without officer recognizing the language as long as there is reasonable reliance on that warrant police officials believe they could execute. (McDonald, 1986) The Court held illegally seized evidence may be used in federal and civil trials to impeach statements made by a defendant who lacks standing on the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court uses the term good faith when referring to the objective reasonableness of the police in the belief of the existence of a warrant that is non-existent benefits. The Court concluded that evidence should not be suppressed where it is discovered by officers in the course of actions that are taken in good faith and reasonable belief that they are authorized. (McDonald, 1986)

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.

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

The two basic types of courts in the United States are trial courts and appellate courts. These two types of courts have two entirely different functions. The job of a trial courts is to determine questions of fact. Appeals courts, on the other hand, must determine questions of law. Appellate courts have the right to overrule jury verdicts and judges decisions due to the fact that an appellate court typically concerns itself solely with issues of law. An appeal is not the time to retry the case or to reargue the facts. In civil matters, either party can appeal the decision of the trial court. Usually in criminal matters, however, only the defendant may appeal a criminal conviction and the state is not

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.