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.
When does lawful police action impermissibly create exigent circumstances which prelude warrantless entry; and which of the five tests currently being used by United States Courts of Appeals is proper to determine when impermissibly created exigent circumstances exist? Holding: 1. The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. (a) The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. 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 .
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
The amendment also explains how law enforcement should obtain information by search warrants based on probable cause. The exclusionary rule does not allow some evidence, if it will violate the Fourth Amendment law. The fourth amendment
There are two types of search and seizure, one would be when the government will acquire a warrant permitting the measures, and the second are the ones justifiable with no warrant. Another thing under the fourth amendment there are at least six exclusions for the warrant condition, in which a warrantless investigation is justified so this means it is legitimate under the fourth amendment. This is where the plain view doctrine comes in effect. The plain view doctrine one of these reasons will come into play to make a warrantless seizure, the uncovering of fruits, proof, or accessories or contraband to the criminal offense; legally in the area in which they did the search; finding proof in plain view, and to have probable cause to think that the objects are evidence or contraband and is an instrument in the criminal offense. Some of these prerequisites are established in Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
“Home Searches under the 4th Amendment” The 4th Amendment is “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.” The following article describes the “only three ways into a home: Consent; Exigency; Warrant.” There have been many court cases involving the Consent of search and seizures, including Bumper v. No. Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) and Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990). These cases explain the proper methods in the consent of a search and seizure under the 4th amendment. Landlords cannot consent to searches if they are renting a room or dwelling to another person. The persons being searched can limit the area the police are allowed to search, they can also withdraw their consent at any moment during the search.
A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence; AND Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary. • Both elements must be satisfied, and • It can never be necessary to arrest a person unless there are reasonable Grounds to suspect them of committing an offence. 4 State one example of when a police officer may arrest without a warrant Anyone who is about to commit an offence 5 Explain what is meant by ‘necessity criteria’. The power of arrest is only exercisable if the constable has reasonable Grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person. The statutory Criteria for what may constitute necessity are set out in paragraph 2.9 and It remains an operational decision at the discretion of the constable to Decide: • Which one or more of the necessity criteria (if any) applies to the Individual; and • If any of the criteria do apply, whether to arrest, grant street bail after Arrest, report for summons or for charging by post, issue a penalty notice Or take any other action that is open to the officer.
Stop and search: police powers A police officer has powers to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying: * Illegal drugs * A weapon * Stolen property * Something which could be used to commit a crime, eg a crowbar You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that: * Serious violence could take place * You’re carrying a weapon or have used one * You’re in a specific location or area Before you’re searched Before you’re searched the police officer must tell you: * Their name and police station * What they expect to find, e.g. drugs * The reason they want to search you, e.g. it looks like you’re hiding something * Why they are legally allowed to search you * That you can have a record of the search and if this isn’t possible at the time, how you can get a
In line with this, the investigative department requests warrants to search for evidence, but they must be approved by the judicial branch. (Lynch, 1998) Most defenses that invoke the exclusionary rule are based on the lack of or improper application of search warrants. Those that support the continued use of the exclusionary rule argue that there must be this line between the police officers that are often emotionally involved in a case, and an impartial third party that can objectively review the evidence. Without this safeguard, citizens would have little protection from overzealous police officers who could search their homes and persons with almost anything serving as probable cause in their opinion. The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures.
By making this exclusionary rule, the court has to take the incentive away so police cannot take a person’s constitutional right’s away. Law enforcement cannot just bust down a person door just because police cannot even search a person car without a search warrant. There is a purpose to this rule and that is to make law enforcement enforce their own rules. The main purpose is to deter police or discourage police from doing illegal searched. The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges.