Fallsbauer Case

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).

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).)

For searches without a warrant, then its mandatory to comply with standards of probable cause is the court. Even the searches being made for a criminal cannot be made without the existence of a proper probable cause. Therefore the officers don’t have the right to lawfully carry on searching and arresting people without having the proper probable cause with them.

Third, the area to be searched and any item to be seized must be described with particularity (Hall, 2016.) There must be very specific information to obtain a search warrant. A warrant that authorizes a police officer to search a particular home for “unauthorized contraband” violates the Fourth Amendment (Hall, 2016.) A warrant authorizing a search of the same home is valid, provided the warrant is valid in all other respects (Hall, 2016.) The items seized must be very specific and usable items to convict the criminal of his or her actions within the act.

In the article of Scott Morgan “5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search” he explains why we shouldn't agree to a police search. “You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime.” It's your constitutional right so we could stand up to each other unless they have a probable cause. It's your privacy they might even break something when they are searching you.

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,

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.

If the police officer precedes to search the resident’s house without obtaining a search warrant the evidence obtained can be deemed illegal under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. “Under this rule, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, evidence that has been seized illegally is considered “tainted” and cannot be used against a suspect.” [6] The Exclusionary Rule could also be used as cited in the Mapp v. Ohio case. Anything obtained illegally could be deemed tainted or inadmissible in court. It is imperative that the police officers follow all procedures faithfully and as per the tenets that the courts have set up. Any mistakes can, and regularly do, permit a liable party to go free on a technicality.

For a search and seizure to be done the officer has to obtain a warrant, also known as probable cause. By doing this the Fourth Amendment is begin followed, which reads, “The right of people to 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, supports by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or thing to be seized” (Constitution.org/2009). An individual also has the right to protect their belongings against unwarranted searches by police officers. Obtaining a warrant is very important because any evidence that is illegally seized by a police officer cannot to be used in court. This is called the exclusionary rule. It was established in 1914 (Criminal Justice today/2009.Ch7). The plain view doctrine occurs when the evidence is simply in plain view. In this case no warrant is needed. In other words, anything that the officer happens to see at the crime scene can be used as evidence. Another time when a warrant is not necessary is when there is an emergency or when the officer has reasons to believe someone in the home is hurt. These situations are referred to as emergency searches.

The California Court of Appeal found the warrantless search was justified by Rojas’s written and verbal consent. The court agreed with the majority of the federal circuits, in that, this case was “indispensable to the decision in Randolph.” The decision was ultimately concluded that a tenant’s objection has no force if he or she is not physically present. Therefore held, the warrantless search was lawful because Rojas; a co-tenant, consented. Fernandez was denied review in the California Court of Appeal, however certiorari was granted.

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.

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

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

Stacey’s neighbor is protected against unreasonable searches and seizures under the United States constitution. According to the United States Constitution, The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring any warrant be constitutionally authorized and reinforced by probable cause. Consequently, while investigating criminal activity, a police officer can obtain a search warrant due to probable causes. In Stacey scenario, the police had reason to believe Stacey had hidden evidence in the neighbor home. Granted, if these probable causes were justified by observation, physical evidence, and statements by witnesses (Hall, 2015). This probable cause allows a search warrant to gives the police the legal jurisdiction to

In the 1928, case of Olmstead v. United States the issue of whether of wiretapping constituted a “search” for purpose of the Fourth Amendment was interpreted. Olmstead was convicted of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act based on evidence obtained by tapping his telephone line from a junction box located on the public street (Kanovitz, 2010, p.267). According to the text,