Search Warrent Draft Essay

I asked STINSON if he had anything on him and if I could search him. Stinson verbally consented allowing me to search his person. Upon searching his person, nothing illegal was found. I asked STINSON if I could search his pink back pack that he was wearing. STINSON stated "I rather you not." I asked STINSON if there was something illegal in the back pack. STINSON replied yes. I asked STINSON what he had illegal in his back pack. STINSON stated he had a "little bit of weed." Upon STINSON admitting to me that he had illegal narcotics in his back pack, I conducted a probable cause search of the back pack. Upon opening the front pocket of the back pack, I found a silver spoon with a white powdery substance on the spoon. The spoon was partially sealed within plastic. I conducted a field test on the white powdery substance on the spoon following instructions on the test kit. The test kit showed turned

Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is

Balancing the parameters of the Fourth Amendment1 can be a delicate matter. Search and seizure is an integral part of law enforcement; however, it must be handled to the letter of the law protecting the rights of all parties involved. According to the Emergency Doctrine2, probable cause3 in addition to exigent circumstances4 under Article 14.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may afford the police the authority to conduct a search without a warrant. The proper protocol for a Constitutional search and seizure will be dissected and interpreted regarding proper police management and intervention through the following example:

Section 35-33-5-1 of the Indiana code tittle 35 provides that a court may issue a search warrant for property that constitutes evidence, property that is illegally owned or property intended for criminal purposes. It provides that a court may issue a warrant only upon probable cause and supported by an affirmation or an oath to search any place that property can be hidden. Probable cause is important because there are instances when the search or seizure is reasonable and the police will not require a warrant (Henderson, 2005).

A search is defined as the exploration or examination of an individual’s house, premises, or person, to discover things or items that may be used by the government for evidence in a criminal prosecution. In order to have a lawful search a search warrant is required but before a search warrant is issued, it must first, meet four criteria. As stated in the constitution for a warrant to be issued, a search must be based on probable cause. The second requirement is that it must be supported by an oath or affirmation. The third requirement for a search warrant is that it must be signed by a neutral and detached magistrate. In addition to the neutrality requirement, the magistrate must also be able to independently make a determination of probable

On April 2, 2015, Sergeant Alfred Mabely (“Mabely”), a twenty-five year veteran of the Cornwall County police department, observed Grace Trevethyn (“defendant”) growing marijuana in her greenhouse. R.9, 15.

Federal case Carroll vs. United States, taking place in 1925, regarded Carroll, whom federal agents suspected was selling liquor during the Prohibition. After seeing him on the highway, they gave a chase, searched the car, and discovered alcohol. While Carroll argued that a warrant was needed, the Supreme Court said that the warrantless search was valid because otherwise, the evidence would have disappeared as Carroll drove away. (Doc A1) DLK’s situation, while different, shares at least one common similarity- the evidence is not permanent. As DLK was a weed dealer, he made profit off of selling marijuana- the very marijuana he grew in his home. If federal agents had come back at a later date, DLK may have sold away all the evidence needed to incriminate him. Because the case was fairly time sensitive, and stemmed from a previous suspicions, the thermal scan was

This case provided a clear reason to conduct the traffic stop, Officer Stoddard, observed the actions of the driver and its passengers. He had a couple concerns; the vehicle which was commonly used for drug transportation, the driver and his demeanor, and the erratic driving that took place after they passed him. Officer Stoddard also testified that the defendant then attempted to avoid the Border checkpoint by turning down the last road possible before reaching the checkpoint. These particular actions brought about the reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. He followed the rules of his agency after conducting the stop, he was granted the permission to search the vehicle where he found then recovered the notated findings. Through

Aguilar v. Texas established the “two-pronged test” for determining whether a confidential informant’s tip is enough to establish probable cause for a magistrate to issue a search warrant (Aguilar v. Texas, 1964). The test consisted of the reliability of the informant and the basis of knowledge that he or she has of the criminal activity. While these two elements are important, they should not be the sole basis that a magistrate uses to prove probable cause exists. Instead, these elements should be used to as guides when considering the totality of the circumstances of the situation. Illinois v. Gates vacated the two-pronged tests and installed the traditional “totality of the circumstances” approach.

Amber Weingard and Reshawn Ward came to the Shenandoah police station to follow up with dropping off statements off for Officer Bowman. I advised Weingard and Ward Bowman will get the statements and he may follow up with them. I placed the statements in Bowman's box along with a copy of this

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

Based on the above facts and circumstances, your affiant respectfully requests that an arrest warrant be issued for Frederick Stevenson.

This paper will discuss many factors of search warrants, it will discuss the process by which a search warrant can be sought and issued, emphasizing the Fourth Amendment requirements. This paper will also explain probable cause and the standard by which the cause is met. Also, it will describe and discuss at least 2 types of searches that do not require a warrant. Also being discussed is the rationale for allowing warrant less searches, if the reasons are persuasive and if all searches require the probable cause exist or the exceptions.

This paper examines the many factors of search warrants it will examine the process by which a search warrant may be applied for and issued, focusing on the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. This paper will also describe probable cause and the standard by which the cause is fulfilled. In addition, it will describe and discuss at least two forms of searches that do not need a warrant. Also discussed in the study is warrant less searches, if the reasons are compelling, and if all requests require probable cause exists or exceptions.

On the 20th of January, 2016, the Federal Investigative Unit of Bridgeport, West Virginia was called to the residence of 223 Maplewood Drive. Our unit acted on information that we had received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Before we arrived at the scene, our investigative unit obtained a search warrant for the individual's home. Search warrants are vital to any investigation because they are judge issued documents that give law enforcement officials permission to enter a certain area to conduct their searches (Graves, 2013). In order for any member of law enforcement to receive a search warrant, they must file a written document known as an affidavit. An affidavit must show probable cause, particularity