Under what is known as the Plain View Doctrine is called a search-related plain view, referring to items that are identified by the responding officer who was authorized to specifically search for it. In this particular case, the officer was authorized to search for a white, 6’0 tall individual who was wearing a black baseball cap, black t-shirt, and jeans. Even though this description is vague, this individual was in the area of the crime, did match the description, and acted merely suspicious in the officer’s presence. This initially identification is where the detention had occurred in this particular case. The plain view doctrine also states that an officer has the ability to make a warrantless seizure of an object that is involved in a crime if the officer can identify the object in plain view (Terry v. Ohio,…
A search is trying to find something by looking carefully and a seizure is taking your belongings. The police officers already has suspicion about DLK growing marijuana and taking the time to obtain a warrant would only less the chance of winning the case. The suspect, when searching his home, was found growing more than 100 marijuana plants which was never shown on the thermal imager because the thermal imager doesn’t show any parts of the home, it just detects where the heat is escaping from the exterior of the home (Doc C). The law enforcement already had…
powerful evidence of a crime that is occurring it seems obvious that they would want to act on that evidence without having to take the time to get a warrant. Courts have ruled that a warrant…
Document A provides an overview of a precedent case, Carroll v. United States, where it was decided that in the situation that evidence could be destroyed or hidden, it is constitutional to conduct a search without a warrant. The overview described the case saying “federal agents believed Carroll was selling liquor...they saw him driving...and pulled him over…they searched his car finding liquor and arrested him.” Although this case is in fact different from DLK v. United States, it mirrors one idea, law enforcement took action without a warrant. In DLK v. United States, the federal agents suspected DLK was growing marijuana in his home. However, because there was not sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant “the imager [was a reasonable way] for law enforcement to gather information without … a search warrant” (Document E). Using thermal imaging in this case was a permitted means of collecting information and is summarized well with Justice John Paul Stevens’s statement in Document F, “[t]he officers’ conduct did not amount to a search and was perfectly…
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Cornell University Law School, No Date).” The first part of this section states that no warrant will be given unless there is probable cause that will lead the judge or magistrate to believe that there is a very good reason to invade the privacy of a citizen. If there is not enough evidence for the judge to justify the signing of a search warrant, then the officer needs to try and find more evidence that will bolster his or her case.…
An officer cannot retrieve a search or arrest warrant based on their belief or suspicion. An application for a warrant must be supported by a sworn, detailed statement made by a law enforcement officer appearing before a neutral judge or magistrate. Probable cause must exist and the facts must provide a reasonably trustworthy basis that a crime has been committed or about to happen. Probable cause can also come from reliable police informants even though those statements cannot be tested by a magistrate. Along with probable cause, a warrant must also “particularly” describe the…
This paper discusses the underlying circumstances to obtaining a warrant, and proving probable cause. Certain exceptions are made by law in some situations, such as searching vehicles. All officers of the law, and court officials are legally obligated to follow all rights reserved by the Fourth Amendment, and without doing so they could jeopardize their case. Investigation must take place before an officer can prove probable cause to a judge, and obtain a warrant. Warrants are necessary documents in apprehending suspects, conducting searches, and seizures. Without warrants, in most cases, evidence will be ruled as inadmissible. There are several ways to prove probable cause to obtain warrants. Without sufficient probable cause a warrant can not be issued to officers.…
The lawful arrest search incident is not restrictive to the issuance of a warrant. This means that if a person gets lawfully arrested, then the police have every right to search the person’s surrounding which is reach of the police.…
1. The officer’s observation of the evidence must be lawful, meaning the officer had a legal right to be at the location, or the suspect did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location,…
The police often stop and search people which are suspected to have stolen or prohibited articles in possession. The power to do this comes from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which indicated “a constable may search a person or vehicle in public for stolen or prohibited articles” (Elliott and Quinn, 2011, 374). The police must follow a procedure when they are to stop and search a suspect. First of all they cannot stop and search at random; they must have reasonable grounds for the search. Before the search they must then identify themselves and the station they are based at as well as the grounds for the search. If the police officers do not do this the defendant can appeal on the basis that the search was unlawful as highlighted in the case R v Bristol where the search carried out under of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was unlawful given that it had not complied with the requirements under of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It followed that the defendant was not guilty of intentionally obstructing a search under the 1971 Act” (All England reporter, 2007)…
· Physical Searches - the physical search of a person or their belongings may be warranted in the event of a reasonable belief suggesting violation of company rules and regulations or unlawful activity.…
The criminal justice system works in such a way that certain behavior or actions are legislated as a criminal offense wherein the state or the federal government can prosecute an offender even if only being suspected. In this case, there exists rules or limits into which protection are of highest concerns. It does not only apply to civilian suspects but also extends to actual prisoners, and to those who are on parole and under probation. But in reality, it has become a worldwide issue in terms of illegal searches. It has even been stipulated in the U.S. Constitution 's Bill of Rights stating that these restrictions start on the premises of the rights to refuse to testify against oneself, the right to confront one 's accuser and the right to a trial by jury for people charged with crimes. But these federal protections may not always seem to hold especially when police enforcers are dealing with prisoners, people on parole and on probation status. This happens because the jurisdictions regarding these matters depend on the ruling court. The court regulates and decides whether the legislative rule, court practice or police action is permissible under the federal and state constitutional law. From here, we can say during the course of searches, we should be aware and vigilant of possible violations by the apprehending police officers. In such cases, knowledge of the legality, technicality and the law should at least be required or at least explained to the person being searched. As mentioned a while ago, the case becomes quite sensitive for people who are imprisoned, on parole and under probation. The situation for them is very difficult in the sense that they are…
It is common for a search to be defined as any action by government officials, which involves seeking for indication of a violation of law. Nonetheless, according to the Court’s cases, a search ensues when there is a physical invasion into one of the “constitutionally protected areas” which can be associated with the Fourth Amendment: persons, papers and effects (Whitebread and Slobogin, 120). Silverman vs United States (1961) exemplify how searches have conditions. Evidence officers gathered by eavesdropping on…
In the criminal justice system a police officer or crime scene investigator cannot legally search a person or property without a search warrant. There have been ongoing debates and revisions on the legal requirements and circumstances under which it is necessary to obtain a search and seizure warrant before crime scene processing. According to the Fourth Amendment search and seizure requirements, a warrant is required any time a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Therefore, in an effort to protect the right of the people and their belongings against unreasonable search and seizures and up hold the law officials accountable for fair treatment and processing procedures. When a crime scene investigator comes upon the scene, they must…
Michigan to Evidence Seized During Unauthorized Nighttime Searches. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2007(2), 451.…