Preview

There Are Six Major Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement.

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
643 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
There Are Six Major Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement.
There are six major exceptions to the warrant requirement.

1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

A search incident to lawful arrest does not require issuance of a warrant. In other words, if someone is lawfully arrested, the police may search her person and any area surrounding the person that is within reach (within his or her “wingspan”). See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

EXAMPLE: John is arrested for driving while intoxicated after being pulled over for running a red light. A search of his car reveals 8 bags of heroin in the glove compartment and an illegal handgun in the trunk. The heroin is admissible evidence for which no warrant was required as the glove compartment is certainly within John’s wingspan. The gun found in the trunk, however, was not within his wingspan, and was the result of an unreasonable search. This evidence will be excluded.

2. Plain View Exception

No warrant is required to seize evidence in plain view if the police are legitimately in the location from which the evidence can be viewed.

EXAMPLE: an officer cannot illegally enter a suspect’s back yard and then use the plain view exception to seize an illegally kept alligator living in the pool. But, if on the premises to serve a warrant duly issued to search for marijuana plants, the alligator, if in plain view, can rightly (though by no means easily) be seized.

3. Consent

If consent is given by a person reasonably believed by an officer to have authority to give such consent, no warrant is required for a search or seizure. So, if a suspect’s "significant other" provides police with a key to the suspect’s apartment, and police reasonably believe that she lives there, the search will not violate suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights even if she did not live there and even if she, in fact, lacked authority to consent, . See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).

EXAMPLE: Officer Warren knocks on a murder suspect’s door. the door is answered by the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    P1 FINISHED

    • 598 Words
    • 2 Pages

    If a police officer is arresting someone in public they do not need a warrant because they have witnesses…

    • 598 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ken Krooks Case Study

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages

    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,…

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As stated in Warden v. Hayden (1967) officers that are executing a search warrant may search for the items in any place or thing where the evidence could be found on the premises of where the warrant was issued. The precedent…

    • 500 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is a cause, and a probable cause must be sworn to by the police officer or prosecutor and approved by a judge. A warrant must describe what is being searched and what will be seized. 100 marijuana plants were found finalizing the arrest of DLK; however, did the scan violate DLK’s Fourth Amendment rights? The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall be 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” (Constitution). This amendment touches on the expectation of privacy in your home and person. The government is not unable to search you, your home, your belongings, or take your belongings, also known as a seizure, without a good reason. A person’s Fourth Amendment rights may at times seem to delay the world of law enforcement. If the police feel that they have…

    • 987 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    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.…

    • 1267 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mapp V Ohio

    • 316 Words
    • 2 Pages

    According to the Court’s decision, why may illegally seized evidence not be used in a trial?…

    • 316 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Exclusionary Rule was put in place to prevent the government from using evidence that was gathered illegally in violation of the United States Constitution. Evidence that was obtained from an unreasonable search and seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment are found admissible in court under the Exclusionary Rule, if no exceptions apply. The establishment of the Exclusionary Rule was due to the rulings of several Supreme Court cases where it was found unconstitutional for evidence from an illegal search and seizure to be used against someone in court. The Exclusionary Rule is very important, as the evidence that can or cannot be used during a criminal trial can completely alter the ruling of a case.…

    • 578 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As a United States Supreme Court Justice it is our duty to uphold the United States Constitution. It is our responsible to interpret, and understand the meaning of the Constitution. Ultimately, it is also our responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States by upholding the law. That also means we protect them from the very same people responsible for enforcing our laws.…

    • 575 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    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,…

    • 1555 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    An arrest is defined as the taking of a person into custody against their will for the purpose of criminal prosecution or interrogation. An arrest, similar to searches, can be made with or without the use of a warrant, but regardless of whether or not a warrant was used probable cause must be determined in both cases. The main difference between the two is that in arrests that use a warrant, probable cause has been determined before the arrest by a judge or magistrate. In arrests made without the use of a warrant, the police make the determination of probable cause and have to be able to articulate it at a later point to justify the arrest. If the warrantless arrest is deemed unlawful, and it is found that the person in custody had their constitutional…

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Exclusionary Rule

    • 326 Words
    • 1 Page

    Good Faith Exception is the exclusionary rule that allows the admission of evidence even if there was some sort of “technical defect in the warrant.” (Garland, 2011,p.266) Just as long as the officer has reasonable belief that the warrant is valid then they fall in the good faith exception. The bad thing about the good faith exception is that it may look like the courts are okaying “rubber-stamp police warrant applications.” (Garland, 2011,p. 266) This also questions the officers reasonable suspicion because if a “magistrate approves a warrant that lacks support how can they say the officer was reasonably trained.” (Garland, 2011 ,p.266) Some states have rejected the good faith exception, the good faith exception applies to only warrant cases and other limited circumstances.…

    • 326 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Fourth Amendment

    • 1234 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In some cases when a warrant is being executed there is times when law enforcement can seize an item that is in plain sight even if the item in not yet specified in the warrant, but if that precaution were to be taken there would have to be an obvious reason (Salon.com). Often times law enforcement create problems when acting without a warrant, because they seize an item to soon, or invade a property without probable cause. However, there are cases where the Fourth Amendment does not always apply; which does not make it any more okay to intrude on people’s property. For example, private invasions of property, not acting in the way of the government authority are exempt from the Fourth Amendment (Wex Legal Dictionary). A seizure of a property only occurs with the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; for law enforcement to seize a property, it would mean to take into their possession, this shows just how important a warrant really is or officers could technically seize any property they would like. The people of the United States rely on the Fourth Amendment to keep our properties private and safe. Warrantless searches of private properties are mostly prohibited, if they were not prohibited law enforcement would be free to search and seize properties and objects, and ultimately arrest people without valuable…

    • 1234 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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." -Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (4)…

    • 1361 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    With the understanding that police officers need a warrant to search for information that can be related to criminal activity by an individual, most people feel as this is the only way an police officer can search you or your property. They know that according to the exclusionary rule, evidence gained in an illegal search cannot be used to convict them of a crime. However, there are several circumstances the police do not need a warrant for a search, or for the evidence found from that search, to be able to use in court. Those exceptions to that rule are Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest, Hot Pursuit of a…

    • 1953 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the case of Florida v. Bostick, the issue at hand was whether or not narcotics officers illegally searched defendant Bostick’s belongings. Bostick was on a bus headed from Miami to Atlanta, and on one of its stops, narcotics officers performed a routine check. The officers came across defendant Bostick, and asked him for his ticket. The officers then requested consent to search his belongings. “Bostick reportedly consented, at which point the officers performed a search and discovered cocaine.” (www.flexyourrights.org) Bostick was convicted, but decided to appeal, “claiming that due to his apparent inability to leave the bus, the encounter constituted an unlawful seizure“ (www.flexyourrights.org). The court upheld his conviction because they felt that “So long as nature of the officers' contact with the defendant is held constitutionally valid, his consent to be searched and the resultant evidence are held valid as well“. (www.flexyourrights.org)…

    • 554 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays