Criminal Justice: Warrants, Seizures, And Searches
Warrants, Seizures, and Searches
Criminal Justice 3100
A very large and debatable part of Criminal Evidence and Procedure that has and can cause many issues is warrants. A warrant is “a written order issued by a judicial officer or other authorized person commanding a law enforcement officer to perform some act incident to the administration of justice” (Warrant 1). The first statement of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures appeared in The Rights of the Colonists and a List of Infringements and Violations of Rights. The Rights of the Colonists was written in 1772 by Samuel Adams. It consisted of lists of natural rights, rights as Christians, and rights as subjects. The List of Infringements and Violations …show more content…
This is another exception to needing a warrant. In inadvertence, an officer can be interested in or expect to find a certain item, even if it is not listed in the warrant, and it still be a valid seizure. In plain view cases, police have prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he inadvertently came across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. However, a limitation to the plain view rule is that plain view alone is never enough to justify warrantless seizure of evidence. The item 's imcriminating characteristic(s) must be immediately apparent. In Horton v. California, a police sergeant investigating a robbery had a warrant to search petitioner Horton’s home. The warrant issued specified a search for the proceeds of the robbery, specifically, three rings. However, while weapons had been described in the police report, the warrant did not include them. The sergeant entered the petitioner’s home. He did not find the three rings, but he did find weapons in plain view and seized them. The issue was whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was …show more content…
This purpose is to protect the officer from weapons and to prevent destruction of evidence. An exception to the is a protective sweep of a home is allowed if officers have reasonable articulable suspicion that the house is harboring a person posing danger to those on the scene. Officers should be able to do whatever will keep them and others safe whether or not it violates someone 's fourth amendment rights. In searches of a car pursuant to a valid arrest, officers can search the passenger compartment of a car and anything inside even when arestee is already in the police car. Police may search inside of a vehicle when the officer has reasonable belief that the car contains evidence of the offense the suspect is arrested for. An officer cannot search if he only gave a traffic citation and did not arrest the
Criminal Justice 3100
A very large and debatable part of Criminal Evidence and Procedure that has and can cause many issues is warrants. A warrant is “a written order issued by a judicial officer or other authorized person commanding a law enforcement officer to perform some act incident to the administration of justice” (Warrant 1). The first statement of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures appeared in The Rights of the Colonists and a List of Infringements and Violations of Rights. The Rights of the Colonists was written in 1772 by Samuel Adams. It consisted of lists of natural rights, rights as Christians, and rights as subjects. The List of Infringements and Violations …show more content…
This is another exception to needing a warrant. In inadvertence, an officer can be interested in or expect to find a certain item, even if it is not listed in the warrant, and it still be a valid seizure. In plain view cases, police have prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he inadvertently came across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. However, a limitation to the plain view rule is that plain view alone is never enough to justify warrantless seizure of evidence. The item 's imcriminating characteristic(s) must be immediately apparent. In Horton v. California, a police sergeant investigating a robbery had a warrant to search petitioner Horton’s home. The warrant issued specified a search for the proceeds of the robbery, specifically, three rings. However, while weapons had been described in the police report, the warrant did not include them. The sergeant entered the petitioner’s home. He did not find the three rings, but he did find weapons in plain view and seized them. The issue was whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was …show more content…
This purpose is to protect the officer from weapons and to prevent destruction of evidence. An exception to the is a protective sweep of a home is allowed if officers have reasonable articulable suspicion that the house is harboring a person posing danger to those on the scene. Officers should be able to do whatever will keep them and others safe whether or not it violates someone 's fourth amendment rights. In searches of a car pursuant to a valid arrest, officers can search the passenger compartment of a car and anything inside even when arestee is already in the police car. Police may search inside of a vehicle when the officer has reasonable belief that the car contains evidence of the offense the suspect is arrested for. An officer cannot search if he only gave a traffic citation and did not arrest the