The fourth amendment is sometimes not justice conscious in some cases. This include when a person acts suspicious on traffic, only slight questioning may commence. This intern can lead to the escape of criminals from the hands of the police. Sometimes warrant of search may be made and yet the private property is free of any criminal activity thus intrusion to private property (Butler,
A gas tank leak gave the Officer an imminent need to pull the woman from her car and retrieve her purse for identification purposes. Upon being inside of the car in an effort to retrieve the woman’s purse, a gun was seen inside of an already open glove compartment and the officer confiscated the gun. Since the gun was in plain view, this was a legal seizure. “In Horton v. California the Court summed up this doctrine by stating, ‘. .
Consent to Search Sondra Silverberg Criminal Evidence Prof. Alana DeGarmo Date The Fourth Amendment protects people from police searches unless they consent to the search. In many cases, suspects consent to a search because they are not aware of the fact that they can refuse to consent. However, it is easier for a police officer if the person consents to the search. Without the consent, the officer has to prove that the search was necessary. The court will also contemplate other justifying circumstances.
Happy led the officers to a storage room and then to a trap door that was concealed under a rug. Many pounds of marijuana and several ounces of cocaine were discovered under the building. After the officers secured the evidence and were loading up their vehicles, Happy ran over to the door of what appeared to be a private dwelling located within 10 feet of the convenience store and gave a signal indicating illegal drugs at that location. The supervisor knocked on the door and was greeted by an individual, Mr. Right, who turned and ran to the back of the residence.
You can seize anything illegal in plain view if you are legally allowed to be in that house.____________________________________________________________ 5. Plain view also applies to vehicles. This is what gets most people because they are not paying attention when they get pulled over. They leave stuff lying around in their car while the officer is talking to them. If the officer see’s anything illegal in the car he now has probable cause to search your
This led the officers to search in Sam’s car. Sam was arrested on September 20, 2006 in his motor vehicle by members of the Toronto Police Service. In the course of the arrest, police officers seized drugs and two thousand dollars in Canadian currency that was located under the driver’s car mat. Sam was scheduled at youth court and was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, fraud, and production of marijuana in the Municipality at North York. He appealed the decision of the court and luckily to get a good defendant counsel the, case was dropped.
While this law does not have any jurisdiction in a civil or grand jury case, it does prevent police officers from taking action that would violate Americans’ fourth Amendment right and deter any misconduct on behalf of the police officer. The exclusionary rule was designed to prevent police officers from using evidence that would otherwise convict those who actively participate in criminal activity. There are pros and cons in every situation when it involves police behavior and criminal activity. There are five issues that come to mind in determining whether or not the exclusionary rule should be abolished: Police misconduct, who is being punished, who is guilty, ways to protect those whom are wrongfully searched, and judicial integrity (Landmark Cases, 2005). Police officers are expected to enforce the laws of their community without bias and to act within a higher standard than the average citizen.
Special Needs Rule Michael Creggett Everest University CJL 2130-6 Criminal Evidence-6 Instructor: Erin Otis Date: 11/29/13 A police officer was investigating a burglary during which a handgun had been stolen. The police officer was at the time also acting as the police advisor to a high school. School officials called the officer and told him that the gun might be in the trunk of a student's car parked in the school parking lot. Does the "special needs" rule justify the officer’s search of the parked car’s trunk without probable cause? In this case, the officer or the school official could search the truck of the car.
Other misdemeanors under state statute can automatically engage in a lawful search such as a DUI or other arrest able conditions. An officer cannot search your vehicle without the above conditions and cannot search the vehicle because he or she just wants to. An officer who stops a motorist for a minor infraction, such as a speeding violation, generally may not conduct a search (unless, as noted above, there is reason to believe one or more of the car’s occupants is armed or otherwise dangerous).Under the plain view doctrine Officers may lawfully seize evidence of a crime without a search warrant if it is in plain view. For example, if an officer sees a glass pipe with what appears to be drug residue in the backseat after stopping a motorist for running a red light, the officer may seize the pipe. (Find Law Organization 2011).
Probable cause refers to fact or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been , is being or will be committed . Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make a arrest without a search , search with out a warrant or seized property in the belief that the items seized are evidence of a crime . This would be know as warrantless searches . (dictionary.law.com) Two types of warrantless searches are vehicle searches and searches of any school , office building , and prisons . For example Vehicle searches are permitted without warrants providing the officer conducting the search has probable cause to do so in which the officer must provide this evidence to a judge .