Legal Considerations Of Conducting Searches, Seizures, And Evacuation Operations

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

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 of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

The simplest and most common type of warrantless searches are searches based upon consent. [1] No warrant or probable cause is required to perform a search if a person with the proper authority consents to a search. [2] A consent search requires the person being searched to freely and voluntarily waive their Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the

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).)

The three elements that comprise a Fourth Amendment search are government, intrusion and reasonable expectation of privacy. Without all three elements the action is not a search, the Fourth Amendment is not applicable, and a search warrant is not needed. The officer must then determine if any of the ten search warrant exceptions apply. Five of the exception require probable cause and the other five do not.

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.

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 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.” (FindLaw, 2014)

One of the many freedoms we enjoy, as Americans is the right that protects us from unreasonable search and seizures; as well as the necessity for a search warrant when law enforcement wishes to search someone’s property. This right is known as the Fourth Amendment and it contains two clauses: the first one is the reasonableness clause, which states that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The second part is the warrant clause, which states that a warrant must be issued upon the finding of probable cause. It must then be supported by an affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and what us intending to be found.

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

Envision you are at a party where you have not been before and there are people drinking and using drugs. The music is loud and things are getting intense hallucinations. The police arrive at the house where the party is at due multiple calls about drugs and minors. They want to search the house and take a look around but you know there are drugs here and alcohol plus minors. Would it be okay if the police search the house without a warrant? Is this legal or illegal in this situation? I believe that under viable circumstances search and seizure is ethical because it protects citizens from an unlawful entry and provides protection for law enforcement in case a person is dangerous and provides evidence to use in criminal

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?

The main ethical and legal issues during Hurricane Katrina are as follows, both facilities didn’t work together in the time of natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina and also all evacuation did not follow fashion. ALL healthcare worker, DR and relief team must be prepared ahead of time before the disaster. They should know what to expect and how to respond in disaster (Lateef, 2011). However, there is no preparation for natural disaster evacuation throughout the book. There is shortage of supply and medication. It’s unacceptable to carry a sawed–off shotgun inside a facility. One of memorial hospital employees shared an email address for families to check which patients had died and also gave incorrect information to family members which is an ethical issue. The stakeholders in this book are nurse, patient, doctors and police.

In order to prove that the defendant has standing to challenge the validity of a search, the defendant must show that there is an actual subjective expectation of privacy and that the subjective expectation of privacy is one that the society recognizes as reasonable. (Smith v. Maryland (1979) 442 U.S. 735, 740.) Additionally, under the Fourth Amendment, all warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless there is a warrantless exception then officers need a warrant to conduct a search and seizure of a person’s home. (U.S. Const. amend. IV.)