King’s attorney argued that the warrantless search and seizure of the evidence within the apartment violated his client’s fourth amendment rights. The attorney then filed a motion to suppress the evidence which he claimed was illegally obtained. The court found that the warrantless entry was justified due to exigent circumstances which the officers encountered when they approached the apartment. These circumstances included the strong odor presence of marijuana, failure to respond to the door, and the movement which sounded consistent with the destruction of evidence.…
In Safford Arizona school on October 8th, officials strip-searched a 13-year-old girl after they received information from another student that the girl possessed "prescription strength" 400 mg ibuprofen and 200mg naproxen. While attending math, assistant principle Kerry Wilson entered the classroom and instructed Savanna Redding's to his office. Upon entering, she immediately noticed her planner placed on his desk. However, what she didn't recognize was the knife, cigarette and lighter that was contained inside it. Admitting the planner was hers, she explained to the assistant principle that she had lent the planner prior to her classmate, Marissa and had NO knowledge of what was inside it. Also brought to her attention was a large white bottle of ibuprofen that was also found in the planner. Unsatisfied, the assistant principle asked to also search the rest of her belongings in order to disprove her claim. When no evidence was found, he proceeded to send her to the school's nurses office for what can be considered a strip-search. She was told to remove a clothing and in the processes her private areas (breast) were exposed. Complete embarrassed, she remained calm and did as she was told. No pills, or any other illegal item was found on her. Naturally, when Savanna 's mom discovered this she "dropped the bomb" and filed a lawsuit saying it violated her daughter's fourth amendment right (which was the right thing to do)and that she was never contacted during the search at anytime. Proceeding to the trial, the District court found no violation and a panel agreed, but on the appeal in a "en banc decision 6-5" the court reversed the other decision saying that it DID in fact violate her fourth amendment right. School district appealed to the Supreme Court and approved there appeal and granted certiorari. It was reasoned that the strip search was not justified nor was the scope of intrusion reasonably…
The police did not conduct a lawful search and seizure under the guidelines set forth in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that search and seizure can occur during an arrest warrant that is being carried out but the "the area within control" of the suspect. The area within control was eventually decided as being the reach of arms length from the suspect. This is a lawful act designed to prevent the suspect from engaging in dangerous behavior towards others and also for the protection of any evidence the suspect may attempt to destroy. The suspect was not at the dwelling when officers arrived therefore no search and seizure should have taken place. Police officers were notified that the suspect was not present upon arrival and entry of the home. There were no reasonable causes for police to suspect that items dangerous to themselves were inside the home.…
Other conditions on the searches incident to arrest exception include the use of force, the search of other individuals with the arrested individual, searching the vehicle of an arrest person, contemporaneousness and inventory searches "if a government agent has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime without a warrant" because "in the time it would take to get a warrant, the car, driver and contraband or evidence could be long gone" (Harr, Hess, 2006. p. 231). The 1981 case of Robbins v. California saw the justifications for searching without a warrant. Those specifications include that the mobility of vehicles produce exigent circumstances.…
Facts: Hollis D. King was arrested after a search of his apartment. Local police department officers had probable cause to force entering and searching King apartment. Incident to search and arrest stemmed from a strong odor of what appeared to be burning illegal narcotics. Prior to entering the apartment, Police Officers knocked on the door and announced their presence. The occupants in the apartments did not respond. Under the suspicion of valuable evidence being destroyed the officers forced entering into the apartment. As the officers entered the apartment the odor of the burning substance became stronger. The smell of the burning substance created the exigent circumstance in the probable cause and the case at trial. Without a warrant,…
Officer Smith could rely on the premise of “exigent circumstances” to permit her to search the personal effects of the suspect/victim for identification. But the car was stopped on probable cause for a broken tail light, not for suspected possession of drugs. The law states that when a person is stopped for reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the police can only search for objects related to the reason for the search without obtaining a search warrant (When is a Search Warrant Not Necessary?, n.d.). If there were a warrant in this case, Coolidge v. New Hampshire would apply and during the search for the items on the warrant police may also lawfully seize items that are incriminating (Roberson, Wallace, & Stuckey, 2013). This only applies, however, to searches involving warrants. Legal discovery of evidence without a warrant must involve plain view and must be inadvertent. The marijuana baggie was not in plain view. The suspect/victim was unable to give consent for her effects to be searched. The suspect/victim was not in a location to have control over the vehicle and its contents. The traffic stop was for a broken tail light and not suspicion of drug paraphernalia. There was no probable cause for the officer to suspect that marijuana was within the vehicle. Although the discovery was inadvertent, none of the other tests for warrantless search were met. Had Officer Smith smelled marijuana when she stopped the…
One does not expect to leave their house and have a stranger barge into their home and rummage through their belongings. This is the situation that Petitioner David Fallsbauer found himself in with not a stranger, but a highly esteemed officer of the law, whom unreasonably dissected his possessions. Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, citizens are protected against the unbridled and unreasonable searches and seizures. One exception is through consent to the search. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (9th Cir. 1973). Petitioner David Fallsbauer can demonstrate through established case law that the consent his mother gave was ambiguous. Because his mother’s consent was ambiguous, the consent was not…
united states supreme court ruled that police officers that have a warrant to arrest someone can enter a home just to arrest the person only if they have the reason to believe the person actually lives there. The same standard was applied for officers when they are conducting a parole or probation search. The…
In Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1803-04 (1991) the Supreme Court held that a criminal suspect's right to be free from unreasonable searches was not violated when, after he gave a police officer permission to search his car, the officer opened a dosed container found within the car. Consent to search a vehicle inherently encompasses the entire vehicle and its contents, including closed containers. Id. The scope of the search extends to any…
I find that the evidence would still be valid based on the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. The good faith exception states “that If officers had a reasonable, good-faith belief that they were acting per legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible” (Busby, 2009). The good faith exception was established by a 6-3 U.S Supreme court decision in the United States v. Leon 468 U.S. 897 (1984). The majority opinion, as written by Bryon R. White, was that the exclusionary rule was established to deter law enforcements violations of the 4th amendment warranting against illegal search and seizure. Therefore “reliable physical evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate” did not violate the exclusionary rule and the evidence was to be admitted (Kaye, 2011). The good faith exception was reviewed and expanded in Arizona v. Evans 514 U.S. 1 (1995), a case that I feel directly correlates to my decision reference the admissibility of the evidence in the example given. In Arizona v. Evans an officer conducts a legal traffic stop. Upon running the driver’s license the officer discovers an outstanding warrant for arrest. Pursuant to the arrest a search was conduct and marijuana discovered. When charging Evan’s when possession the officers discovered that the warrant had been quashed. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that this was not a violation of Evan’s 4th Amendment rights since the evidence, though obtained based on an illegal warrant, was legal based on the good faith…
3) How were the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress applied to that case? In other words, explain why the court concluded that there was enough evidence to establish intentional…
Considering that these flaws can work in two ways, it's hard to conduct a decent search on someone with the time it takes to get a warrant. Whether they get rid of the drugs or they just didn’t have them in the first place, this can make the police look bad either way. If the person who clearly had drugs…
An exigent circumstance is a situation which allows police officers to react immediately, and enter a building or structure without a warrant. The book defines exigent circumstances, “situation where officers have to take immediate action to make an arrest, officers don’t need to get an arrest warrant before they enter a home to make an arrest. The most common exigency is “hot pursuit” first recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Warden v. Hayden (1967)” (Samaha, 2012, p.151).…
“In all cases, the search must be conducted when there is probable cause. If an officer fails to execute a warrant before probable cause has dissipated, then any resulting search is violative of the Fourth Amendment, and the fruits thereof are subject to the exclusionary rule. This is true even if the search is conducted within the period of time set by law” (Hall, 2014, p. 411)…
Now over time the Supreme Court has looked at the exclusionary rule a number of times and as the supreme court became more conservative in the 1970s and the 1080s, they began to carve out exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The classic exception come from a case called United States verses Leon, and it is called the "good faith" exception. What that means is if the police officer obtains evidence in a good faith belief that they have complied with your constitutional rights, that evidence can still be used against you even if we later find out that there was a problem with the search and seizure. So if the police go to a judge, obtain a warrant, search your home and find drugs, they find out a week later that there was a problem with the warrant and that technically it was an illegal search. The drugs still come in against you because the officers acted in a good faith belief that they had played by the rules. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the exclusionary rule is to prevent us against rogue police officers not against clerical errors or errors on behalf of the…
