Yes, from my observation of the marijuana plants you would need a search warrant to enter and search the house and the resident, but in saying that you would need probable cause, which refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search or seize property relating to an alleged crime to enter the house, so in this case the citizens are breaking the law due to growing illegal drugs. If you enter the residence and seize additional evidence inside and that search and seizure is later deemed illegal, would the additional evidence be admissible in court? Why or why not? In my opinion any additional evidence inside the premises would not be admissible in court, this is because as I stated above that any evidence that was collected at the premises and either the search warrant was not issued or was deemed to be
Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. Thus, the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future (Arizona v. Evans, 1996). In this case, no warrant was obtained and, given the improper consent to search, the motion to exclude the physical evidence filed by William Ellis’s attorney would in all likelihood be granted. In sum, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of a “murder scene” exception to the warrant requirement on three separate occasions spread out over a twenty year period. In each instance, the Court has emphatically rejected the notion that such an exception exists.
As in; Harris vs U.S. (1968). An officer used a registration found in a car that was impounded as evidence in a robbery trial. The Supreme Court deemed the evidence was admissible as it was in plain view and the officer had just reason to be there. The automobile exception put simply is, there is no need of a warrant for a vehicle if police believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime or contraband. A search of a defendant’s car produced drugs in a paper bag, and a leather pouch of cash.
University of Phoenix Material: Robin Mravik Ethical Dilemma Worksheet Incident Review 1. What is the ethical issue or problem? Identify the issue succinctly. | The law enforcement officials did suspect that the individual was driving under the influence and thus becoming a risk to himself and everyone else around him. Before the law enforcement officer can make an arrest there has to be a clear sign of probable cause if an officer neglects to find probable cause before arresting the individual when the trial comes along, the case will be dismissed in court and the offender will walk away free.
This amendment restricts their course of action during a criminal investigation (Fourth Amendment, 2013). However, it also bans unreasonable searches and seizures in the context of civil litigation (Fourth Amendment, 2013). A search may only be conducted if suspicion is the motivation to do so (Fourth Amendment, 2013). Under the Fourth Amendment, generalized searches are prohibited unless circumstances which place the general public in jeopardy (Fourth Amendment, 2013). If an individual wants to sue regarding a supposed Fourth Amendment violation, they must have a standing (Fourth Amendment, 2013).
If you were to get a search warrant, it will be too late. A police officer can stop your vehicle if you are violating a traffic violation. Police officers are also able to make visible inspection. A traffic violation itself, does not allow police officers to search an entire
During another search, police found even more evidence. Procedural History: The case was Issues: Issue 1: Whether the exclusionary rule applies in this case. The rule forbids using illegally obtained evidence in court unless it was an emergency circumstance. However, the police stated there were exigent circumstances that surpassed the need for a warrant. At the same time under the police-created exigency doctrine, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search if the circumstances were created by the police [ii].
Investigation: A person can have reasonable privacy even in a public place. In this case, the person utilizing the phone booth would expect reasonable privacy because they would not think that their conversation would be recorded regardless of the conversations that took place. Under the Fourth Amendment, the taping of the phone conversations constitutes the search even though the search was achieved without a warrant. Conclusion: The evidence such as the tapes were inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the conviction was overturned.
They may, of course, be permitted to engage in certain authorized conduct that would be a crime if committed by regular citizens (such as the use of deadly force in appropriate circumstances). ● Civil lawsuits against government officials—the police, mainly—can be filed when neither the exclusionary rule nor other criminal remedies apply. Section 1983 litigation requires the plaintiff to show that a constitutional rights violation was committed by an official acting under color of state law. Section 1983 lawsuits can be filed against individual police officers, supervisors,
United States, held a device not in public use to examine what would otherwise be hidden is a search, thus presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Warrantless searches: Supreme Court has held that constitutional warrantless searches include: -Area within an arrestee’s immediate control -Premises police enter in hot pursuit of an armed suspect -Stop-and-frisk searches for weapons -Inventory searches of property (e.g., briefcase, automobile) in an arrestee’s possession -Consensual searches The exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence seized in an illegal search in a subsequent trial of the defendant. The Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment provides a privilege or protection against compelled testimonial self-incrimination -Practical meaning: a person may remain silent if making a statement would assist the government in prosecuting the person - Miranda warnings Safe guard the right -Also prohibits prosecutorial comments at trial about the defendant’s failure to testify. Double jeopardy