Search & Seizure

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,

When it comes to Search and Seizure, allot of people think that law enforcement should not be allowed to search or seize property. I have heard many arguments against this subject, people stating that law enforcement officers go too far or have no right to search someone’s property such as their vehicle. Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion it requires that a combination of facts makes it more likely than not that items sought are where police believe them to be. In addition to establishing probable cause for a search, a warrant must contain the reasons for obtaining it, the names of people presenting the affidavits, what is specifically being sought and the signature of the judge issuing it.

Under the 4th Amendment, it states” an individual is protected from unreasoning searches and seizures.” Police dept. theoretical are given the opportunity to obtain a proper search warrant, however, countless police officers will attempt to evade this step by asking for consent. Many people believe that by refusing to a search, it is seen as a sign of guilt, so some freely give consent, even in situations where there is incriminatingThe roommates has the right to permit the police into the residence. however, the roommate has the power to grant consent to the officer. The case “Georgia v. Randolph,” states that the roommate, who is physically present, can object to the search, so at that point the police can obtain the search warrant. However,

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful seize and searches; therefore, officers need to have a search warrant to enter a dwelling. In the Supreme Court case of Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court announced the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained during a search that violates a person’s constitutional rights can be inadmissible in court (Hendrix, 2013, p.162). Dollree Mapp requested a search warrant and the present of a lawyer. She did not give the police the consent to enter her home. However, in the situation concerning the marijuana, plain view doctrine allows officers to seize contraband that is visibly seen on a person’s premises. Plain view is not considered a search; therefore, it is

In the Plain View Doctrine, it is legal that when attempting a search for another means, a public official can seize other evidence that may not be accompanied with that crime as the findings are of criminal activity. Even though, a police officer may have already secured a warrant but have specified what their findings will be in detail, there are still loopholes even within their statement, Horton v. California. Therefore, even when inadvertently seizing the evidence, it is still confined as validified evidence due to the officer’s lawful right to seize something even if there is no warrant. In general, even with the exceptions to the requirement of warrantless searches, there has to always be a general rule that even the cases above me have to inquire within their proposed holding of the case and its circumstances. Most searches and seizures, warrantless or not, are

Under the 4th Amendment of the United States, citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. One exception is through consent to the search. Petitioner Fallsbauer will argue that the consent his mother gave was ambiguous, and because his mother’s consent was ambiguous the consent was not valid and therefore the police had a legal duty to clarify the ambiguity. Specifically, the officers needed to clarify the ambiguity of her consent regarding searching in the shoe box where the police officers found the tablets later discovered to be Taz. Petitioner will argue that the case of U.S. v. Whitfield is analogous to and controlling in his case. In Whitfield, the defendant had been accused of theft, and police officers came to search the residence of the defendant. The court ruled that the mother had not told police officers whether she had anything to do in the 29 year old defendant’s bedroom. They had no reason to know and therefore they could not take her consent. The area of the house to be searched was not under her authority. The court said that ownership of the house does not imply common authority. “A landlord-tenant type of arrangement between a

The Supreme Court first outlined the search-incident-to-arrest exception in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) and United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), holding that police may search a suspect's person and the immediate vicinity during a lawful arrest. This exception serves two governmental interests: (1) the need to ensure officer safety and disarm the suspect and (2) the need to prevent destruction of evidence. But, as the Court stressed in a recent case, when "there is no possibility" that the suspect could gain access to a weapon or destroy evidence "both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply." Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 339 (2009). The basic rule under the Fourth Amendment is that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable." Id. at 338.

Under this case the Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution prohibits the police from performing unreasonable or unwarranted searches of people’s properties. With this we understand

The chapter discusses how the goals of law enforcement are to locate the evidence for the crime and arrest suspects for committing the crime. A search can be defined as an invasion of a person’s privacy for the purpose of collecting evidence for a criminal proceeding. A seizure can be defined as when a law enforcement officer interferes with a person’s possessory interests in some meaningful manor. I have located an article that depicts the topic of an illegal search and seizures in drug operations specifically the no knock rule. The no knock rule in the United States is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without notice, such as entering without knocking or ringing a doorbell. Both article and

“Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed” (Stevens 2009).

Law enforcement officers can conduct warrantless searches for a variety of reasons. Some of the benefits are not having to wait for a judge of magistrate to sign off on it. If you can obtain consent from an individual it must be voluntary and stay within its scope, as well as the person giving consent must have the authority to do so. The search incident to lawful arrest exception is used every time an officer makes an arrest, this is to ensure their safety, prevent escape, and prevent destruction of evidence. This could be a body search, or a search within the area within a person’s immediate control. Police may use warrantless searches when exigent circumstances arise, such as when a warrant may be impractical, useless, dangerous, or unnecessary. These include danger of physical harm to officer or destruction of evidence, searches in hot pursuit of dangerous suspects, danger to a third person, and driving while intoxicated. Police can also use the special needs beyond law enforcement exception for public school searches, testing students for drugs, airport searches and searches of probationers and parolees.

I feel that it is the responsibility of law enforcement to be fully aware of search and seizure laws so that a person’s civil rights are not violated. They are always changing, and it is the responsibility of the individual officer and their department to ensure that they are current with the changes. I recently finished my annual in-service and we had a half day dedicated to search and seizure when it came to DUI laws. When an officer violates a person’s civil rights in regards search and seizure, “any evidence derived from that search or seizure will almost certainly be kept out of any criminal case against the person whose rights were violated” (FindLaw, 2017).

Furth more, the case of United States v. Ross confirmed the court’s decision legal in scenario one. Police received a tip from a reliable informant that Ross was selling drugs from his vehicle. Officers stopped the car and began to search the vehicle. During the search they found, a bullet in the front seat of the vehicle, and a pistol in the passenger in compartment. They extended the search to the trunk of the car after Ross was arrested, where they found a closed paper bag of drugs. In this case, the court confirmed that the police have probable cause to justify the warrantless search of a car, they may search the entire car, and open the trunk and any packages or luggage found therein that could reasonably contain the items for which they have probable cause to search. The court’s decision made the officers in scenario two search legal as they searched the passenger compartment where the officer opened a box filled with ammunition. Although the officers action was legal in scenario 1 some things the officer could have done

There are times when police can perform a search without a warrant, and most searches actually do occur without warrants being issued. That is not to say the police can barge into your home and search it without a warrant; if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and there is not probable cause, a search warrant is required. However, if probable cause does occur, such as the suspect runs away, a gunshot is heard from another room in a home, or even when an individual makes a sudden movement, a search becomes legal without a warrant. Even with a reasonable expectation of privacy, the police can legally conduct a search without a warrant in situations in which certain exemptions

Based on this scenario, as a police officer, there would not be enough evidence for me to determine probable cause for a search warrant because I cannot establish a clear fact based on the information provided by the woman. Before a judge can issue a warrant, the officer must prove to a magistrate that probable cause exists based on the information they have gathered. They must also articulate to a judge that the item they are looking for hope to be in a particular location. Also, in the case I have to ensure that I take control of the situation because I have to make sure that people feel safe and protected in their neighborhood. Furthermore, I will investigate the case by having a verbal conversation with the neighbor's son who had purchased