The Role Of Illegal Search And Seizure In Law Enforcement

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

What if police could barge into any house whenever they feel like it? In a world like this, citizens would have no privacy. People would have to be on alert 24/7 in case any unwelcomed visitors invited themselves inside without permission. The Background Essay: Search and Seizure: Did the Government Go Too Far? notes that the British government would inspect colonists’ houses for certain goods. In order to avoid such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment states that a search warrant and a reasonable cause is required before any government official is allowed to search another’s belongings. However, in some dire situations, a search warrant is not necessary. The Background Essay gives the examples, “…hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and/or permission of the suspect,” for when police do not need to worry about taking the time to receive a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is open to interpretation. As a result, there is a collection of various cases that need to be addressed that involve search and seizure. Such as the case of DLK. In this case, DLK’s house was searched by federal government officials with a thermal imager, which senses warmth, because he was suspected of growing marijuana. The question proposed is whether the use of such high-tech tools, like the thermal imager, count as a “search”. In a situation such as this, it is safe to say that the government went too

In the supreme court Muehler v. Mena case, Mena sued the officers in federal district court for violating her 4th amendments rights. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The officers heard that there was that she was affiliated with gang violence and deadly weapons so they searched the house that Mena and others were in. The officers did things like handcuff Mena and the others. They also questioned her about her immigration status. She believed this violated her 4th amendment rights that should protect her from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Mena tried suing the officers in federal district court for violating her Fourth Amendment rights after this. She felt

Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot just force their way into someone’s home without probable cause. Even with probable cause, the police need to have the consent of the owner or a warrant that says they can search the premises, and that anything they find can be “used against you in a court of law” (Miller, 2016). The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments to the criminal justice system. The Fourth protects citizens from the police obtaining things that could lead citizens to be convicted for something that the police did not have permission to obtain in the first place. The exclusionary rule was put in place by Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States.

Search incident to Lawful Arrest- if an individual happens to be arrested lawfully they are no longer a free citizen therefore a police officer may search their persons and any areas that are within their reach. An example can be Mary is arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. She was stopped after swerving through the road and going at a very slow speed. A search of her vehicle found narcotics in the passenger side of the vehicle. She was herself and that was within her wingspan.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

First, it substantially limits citizens’ Fourth Amendment right to personal security. “The constitutional lodestar for understanding the Fourth Amendment is not an ad hoc reasonableness standard; rather, the central meaning of the Fourth Amendment is distrust of police power and discretion.” However, many courts give strong deference to the judgement of police officers and judicial scrutiny makes it impermissible to second-guess police officer’s split second judgments. “Were courts to consider the historical distrust of police power when reviewing reasonable force claims, one would expect less deference to police judgment and more concern for an individual’s interest in personal security.” The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect citizens from governmental abuses and yet the factors put forth by Graham are far more protective of law enforcement

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

In the District of Columbia v. Wesby case The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on whether a number of partygoers were in the right or if the police officers were in the right. The police were called to respond to a noise complaint at a residence and later questioned if the partygoers had a right to be there at all. The partygoers say they are innocent because they were told they could be in the home. While the police officers say they broke the law by trespassing. To defend the partygoers case they are using the 4th amendment.

From what was brought to the Supreme Courts attention the police did everything properly, they knocked on the door loudly and told the tenants they were the police. If they do not do those two things the tenants may not hear them or they may not open the door because they do not know who it is. This is where the situation became exigent because then the tenants inside began running around and obviously destroying evidence. The police then shouted they were going to enter the apartment and busted the door down to get it. The respondent pointed to no evidence supporting his argument that the officers made any sort of demand to enter the apartment, much less a demand that amounts to a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment. The record was made clear that the officers’ announcement that they were going to enter the apartment was made after the exigency arose, therefore everything that happened was just.

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

The case of United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) was recognized by the Supreme Court as a warrantless arrest with probable cause in public places did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Since this individual was robbed in a public place a warrantless arrest can exist. However, the officer must have probable cause such as adequate reason that the person had committed a felony crime before an arrest is executed. Therefore, probable cause can be determined by a statement from the victims, witnesses, personal knowledge, observation of the officer, reliable hearsay, and informant tips. Nevertheless, if the crime occurs in an officer present, then a misdemeanant that breach the peace does not need a warrant. On the other hand, each state has

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).

The 4th Amendment protects the rights of each person, their home and parcels. There are a few exceptions for an officer to enter a private residence