Search and Seizure

Hey, Professor Farris, according to the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department any search or seizure without a warrant must be justified and supported by clear, convincing and articulable facts. Officers must be prepared to justify any and all warrantless searches. A search without a warrant has consistently been found by the courts to be preemptively unreasonable, and therefore invalid, absent specific and articulable facts. If an experienced officer has the reasonable suspicions can articulate to a set of facts and circumstances that criminal activity may be afoot and make rational inferences. (Booker, 2015) The officer must have probable cause under any circumstances that would lead a reasonable man to believe that it is more likely than not a certain individual has committed or is committing an absolute crime. Officers may search vehicles when there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle. The vehicles need only to show inherent mobility rather than actual mobility. The search can be made immediately or delayed as long as probable cause existed even if the vehicle has been impounded and immobilized. An officer may search in any place that the object of the search may reasonably be found. This includes locked containers. Probable cause must be item specific. Probable cause for arrest is not probable cause for a search. Probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search has to be just as sufficient as probable cause to support

Many people cite Mapp v. Ohio as the prime example for the exclusionary rule, but from earlier times, judicial courts have used our amendments to define, enforce and expand the exclusionary

There are equal numbers of supporters of the exclusionary rule as there are opponents of it. The proponents of have many reason to support the exclusionary rule as well as the opponents. Below I will discuss both sides’ arguments for and against the exclusionary rule.

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).

This case has had an effect on society because it shows how the rights of an individual were considered less important than the administration of justice. This case marked a turning point in the Supreme Court 's thinking. With the introduction of the exclusionary rule, the Court devised a way of enforcing the Fourth Amendment. Since evidence seized unlawfully could no longer be used in federal court against a defendant, a prosecutor might lose or drop a case for lack of evidence. Having the police be careful next time to obtain search warrants and make sure their searches and seizures are legal.

The stop and frisk policy is a practice employed by the New York Police Department where officers can temporarily detain, question, and with reasonable suspicion, search civilians on the street for illegal contraband and weapons. This policy has gained a high controversial status due to questions about its constitutionality, effectiveness, and racial profiling causing it became a hot topic for debate during the 2016 presidential election. This election led to an even further increase in awareness within the American public as it became sensationalized fostering more controversy within the public. Although it can act as a deterrence for unlawful possession of illegal substances, the stop and frisk policy instated in New York City is both ineffective

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.

." The exclusionary rules evaluation does not allow the use of evidence at trial obtained through methods that violate the constitution. The exclusionary rules is a judicially created remedy, even though the Fourth Amendment requires search and seizure be reasonable, but the Fourth Amendment does not set fourth a remedy if search and seizure do not comply with that reasonableness requirement.

The book provides the definition of the exclusionary rule, which is “The legal principle that government is prohibited from using in trials evidence that was obtained by unconstitutional means (for example, illegal search and seizure).” It is said that the rule was formulated on a limited basis in a 1914 Supreme Court decision. The exclusionary rule was expanded to the point where almost any illegally obtained evidence was inadmissible in the 1960s.

The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered illegally this comes into play when evidence is obtained in violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. The rule may also be triggered by police violations of the Fifth or Sixth Amendment. Additionally, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine holds that

The lawsuit was fix in 2003, as part of the arrangement , the NYPD agreed to preserve a written antiracial profiling policy, to evaluate officers’ stops to safeguard their adherence to both department policy and the law, and to furnish the results of those audits (as well as data on all stops).

This rule began in Weeks v. United States, when the Supreme Court finally found a way to implement the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals. In this case an agent completed a search for gambling evidence at Fremont Weeks home without a warrant. He was later convicted at trial based on the illegal evidence that the agent collected. However, on appeal, the evidence was dismissed because of the warrant less search and in result Fremont Weeks 's conviction was overturned. This was a clear example of how the Exclusionary rule is centered on the Fourth Amendment, and how illegal activity such as search and seizures by law officials are not permitted.

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

Thus, this leaves this determination up to the courts to decide case by case. Probable cause quantitates specific levels of suspicion and is based on facts and prudent belief of guilt, thus allowing a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search. Probable cause is more substantial than reasonable suspicion pertaining to the justification for an investigative detention. (Devallis Rutledge, 2010).

Probable cause establishes a law enforcement officer’s ability to make a reasonable search of a citizen or their possessions. Probable cause is defined as evidence that may lead a reasonable