Search And Seizure Exceptions . There Are Several Exceptions

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

Arguments are powerful in the United State on the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is a tool that is used to defend the Fourth Amendment. Is an individual most powerful tool. The exclusionary rule helps ensure the unnecessary search and seizure. Another pros will be shifts the burden of proof away from the individual. There’s a term used that it is powerful when it comes to the exclusionary rule will be “innocent until proven guilty”. They are guilty when you are being

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).)

In the case of Santiago v. State of New Mexico (Santiago v. State of New Mexico, 2009), security officers had responded to a fight and caught the defendant running out the front door of the Mall they were working at. The defendant was pinned to the ground and handcuffed. The security guards searched the defendant by reaching inside his pockets and removing several items, including a pill bottle containing four grams of cocaine. Shortly after, police showed up and the defendant, as well as the removed items, was turned over to police.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica the exclusionary rule, in American law, states that any evidence seized unlawfully by the police is in violation of the Fourth Amendment (The Editors of The Encyclopedia Britannica). The exclusionary rule was created to exclude any evidence obtained during an illegal search to be used in federal and state courts. The principal behind it is to protect the constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment that may be threatened by police misconduct. Also to secure

A police officer is dispatched to a call in his jurisdiction for a noise complaint. The police officer arrives hearing very loud music coming from the residence which violates a noise ordinance. The police officer knocks on the front door with no answer so he proceeds to the back door to knock when he observes what appears to be marijuana plants based on his training and experience. The police officer can seize the marijuana plants based on the Plain View Doctrine. “In Harris v. United States (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that anything a police officer sees in plain view, when the officer has a right to be where he or she is, is not the product of a search and is therefore admissible as evidence.” [1] The

The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use

The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.

“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim . . . . Instead, the rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). They are saying is that the need for the rule is to deter illegal techniques that police use to obtain evidence, not to simply give more rights to the defendant. As Estreicher and Weick pointed out, “all of the cases since Wolf requiring the exclusion of illegal evidence have been base on the necessity for an effective deterrent to illegal police action” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). So instead of looking at the exclusionary rule as the end-all-right that citizens are

You’re right! The exclusionary rule is very important especially in ensuring that the police officers abide by the fourth amendment and conduct legal searches and seizures. The problem is sometimes police officers make bad judgments and try to patch it up by performing illegal actions. In addition, unlawful searches and seizures may lead to death. The Chief Justice makes a good point, because gathering evidence to prove the crime should be the prime goal. I also believe that police misconduct is over exaggerated now days, but I can admit that it still occurs today.

In 1914, during the Supreme Court case Weeks versus the United States, the exclusionary rule was established (Hendrie 1). The exclusionary rule was a part of the Fourth Amendment. It states that evidence found at a crime scene is not admissible if it was not found under the correct procedures. This means that the government cannot conduct illegal searches of a person or place and use evidence that is found at that time. The government must go through the procedures of obtaining warrants or have probable cause to search an individual or place. The exclusionary rule is used to provide civil rights for individuals and restricts powers of the local and federal government (Lynch 1).

The search and seizure stipulate that the Fourth Amendment is about privacy. It gives a prevision of protection of personal privacy to every citizen’s right, not to serve as a fixed protection against the misuse of the government, but to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into individuals lives. There is an understanding that one must know when looking into the Fourth Amendment and expecting protection, that must be considered. It serves as a protection for the rights of the people during police stops, arrests, searches and seizures of homes, papers and businesses. It has been placed to be a legal mechanical device to ensure that people’s rights are treated fairly under limited circumstances from those who are in a legal position. The Fourth Amendment stretches out to demonstrate the protection of search and seizure. This constitutional protection is provided to individuals in many scenarios. When police have a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant or the belief that probable cause in which a crime has been committed it shows that law enforcement has validation or at least a solid belief of probable cause during a search or seizure, but just so you understand the police can override your privacy, your concerns and conduct a search of you and your personal space. Law is a concrete form of rules that has been placed in a foundation that was established for policy holders to refer back to encase there is a need for an exclusionary rule (Nd 2014). During my

However, the concurring opinion gave by Justice Hugo Black stated that the fourth amendment ban against unreasonable searches and seizures along with the fifth amendment’s ban against forced self-incrimination defends the exclusionary rule.

The court was divided into the decision on how to apply the exclusionary rule, which is for cases where someone’s fourth amendment right has been violated. The majority opinion was to expand the use of the exclusionary rule with the good faith exception. The dissenting disagreed and opposed the extension of the good faith exception.

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.