Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: The rationale behind this exception is that a person who has been arrested may destroy evidence or use some type of concealed weapon against the arresting officer. The Supreme Court of the United States articulated this rule in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The Court held it was reasonable for law enforcement to search an arrestee for evidence or weapons. In order for a search incident to arrest to be lawful, the arrest itself must be lawful. This means if a person is arrested without a warrant or without probable cause and incriminating evidence is discovered after the arrest, that evidence cannot be used against the arrestee.
However, the vehicle appeared to have committed a traffic violation based off of Smith’s perception. In the case of Whren v. United States, this case can back up Smiths’ reason to pull the driver over based off of probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred. Once Officer Smith began to approach the automobile, she then had reasonable suspicion of the vehicle based off of its description of an earlier crime. This gives law enforcement a reason to conduct a pat down. The pat down of the driver was very much legal based off of reasonable suspicion of the vehicle’s description.
Although “ ‘searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable,’ ” Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U. S. 398 , this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment ,” Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U. S. 385 . One such exigency is the need “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Brigham City, supra, at 403. Pp. 5–6. (b) Under the “police-created exigency” doctrine, which lower courts have developed as an exception to the exigent circumstances rule, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search when the exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police.
Finally, a police officer can conduct a “search incident to arrest” without a warrant. This means that during the course of a lawful arrest — one that’s based on probable cause — the police can search the arrestee and the immediate surroundings for weapons or for evidence the police fear might be destroyed.” These indicate that police officer has rights to conduct the search without the warrant in certain situation, it’s for protected the law and the safety of the community also for protects the suspects themselves. (http://www.gasawaylongandfarmer.com/information/criminal-defense-faq/Can-Police-Conduct-a-Search-Without-a-Warrant_AE12.html) There is case called Michigan V. Fisher. In this case a police
- cert was granted ISSUE: - Did the FBI violated Katz 4th Amendment Right? (to privacy) HOLDING: - Yes REASONING: - The phone booth should be considered protected when doors are shut but the 4th amend. protects persons not places from unreasonable intrusion. In a public place, a person can have that reasonable expectation (but isn't protected because of plain view) Since the government was electronically listening and recording the conversation, it is constituted as a search & seizure. Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible.
Brinegar v. United States 338 U.S. 160 69 S. Ct. 1302; 93 L. Ed. 1879; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2084 Facts: Brinegar had a reputation for illegally transporting liquor across state lines. The officer recognized the defendant one day, while parked by the highway, and noticed that the defendant's vehicle looked "heavily loaded." When he pulled Brinegar over, the officer could see one case of alcohol in the front seat of the car. The defendant later on denied that any liquor was visible.
Confidential Informants are told to do acts or buy thing that may be illegal, but they are doing it on behalf of the government (Zalman, M. (2011)). The third part is that there has to be a connection between the collected item of evidence and an unlawful act by the officer to get the evidence. The exclusionary rule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment gives the people protection under the criminal justice system from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also explains how law enforcement should obtain information by search warrants based on probable cause.
"Passenger describes L.A. Police Beating of Driver, Calls it racial," New York Times, March 21, 1991. Freddie Helms was hit in the head while lying on the ground. His bloody baseball cap was turned over to police. Helms were treated for a laceration on the top of his head. "Prosecutor Says Officers Hit Passengers in King's Car," L.A. Times, March 6, 1993.
For example, there was a “man [who was] sentenced to prison for 25 years to life under the law for stealing a bottle of vitamins” (Murphy). In March 1999, when the Three Strikes law was challenged by this case, the Supreme Court “refused to hear” (Murphy) a word that was said by the people. By putting them in prison for an excessive amount of years, housing for serious offenders is being made unavailable which will lead to an increase “to an already overcrowded and expensive prison system” (Messerli). Some of the people may have committed the innocuous crime to help their spouse and children. When used, the Three Strikes law treats all crimes the exact same way, which makes the law unjust.
Police Discretion Checkpoint Heather Baxter CJS/220: Introduction to Criminal Courts July 10, 2013 Professor Raymond Brown Police Discretion Checkpoint Police discretion is the judgment officers use in the field, whether it be letting someone go after a stern lecture, or taking someone to jail for a minor offense because they may be a danger to themselves or others. An internal mechanism that could influence a police officer’s discretion would be if the officer feels compassion or is doubtful about a situation. An example would be if a driver is caught speeding and is pulled over by an officer, and the driver tells the officer that they are on the way to the hospital for an emergency. The officer may feel compelled to let that person go because they feel compassion towards that driver. An external mechanism would be if a person is verbally or physically abusive to an officer in a situation.