Types Of Searches And Seizures

The Government argued the defendants’ Fourth Amendment not violated under the constitutional because the parked vehicle was at a public lot. In some States, the Government has the authority to allow police officers to search a vehicle without the necessity of warrant. “...as long as a state is deciding law based upon its interpretation of its own constitution, the state can be more restrictive than the Supreme Court. However, if the state is interpreting the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, then they must follow the body of law established by the United States Supreme Court”(Policelink). The Government believes the attachment of the monitoring device for search was a responsible forfeiting act. As well as wiretapping the defendants cellular to help them enforce a predominantly well prepared investigation.

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

The simplest and most common type of warrantless searches are searches based upon consent. [1] No warrant or probable cause is required to perform a search if a person with the proper authority consents to a search. [2] A consent search requires the person being searched to freely and voluntarily waive their Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

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,

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

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.

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.

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

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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

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.

When they search without a warrant they could do a voluntary search in which you freely give them permission to go ahead and conduct the search and you can‘t be tricked or coerced into giving the consent. The police can conduct various types of searches such as when you are being arrested the police have the right to go ahead and conduct a search of your immediate areas some people say it can only go as far as the wingspan on your arms but others beg to differ. Another is the inventory search in which they go through all your stuff to make a list of all the items you have that

This was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the power of law enforcement to conduct suspicionless searches, with drug-sniffing dogs at road stops. Previous court decisions had given the police power to create road blocks for the purpose of border security and removing drunk drivers off the road. They ruled that the search was “designed to serve special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” In this case however, the court refused to “credit the general interest in crime control as justification for a regime of suspicionless stops.” This opinion was given by Justice O’Connor, as well as many other Justices. Many people were wondering if these random stops to find illegal narcotics followed the 4th

believing that you are not, in fact, in your own home or that you are