Understanding Search and Seizure Ann Pierce AIU Online Abstract What are the guidelines for search and seizure? When is it ok to not have a warrant to search? This paper will look at what is required to get a warrant, when one is needed or not needed, and some of the types of searches performed by police. Understanding Search and Seizure The 4th amendment states: “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 fourth amendment is about privacy.
The Do’s and Don’ts on Warrants Renee Grant CJE 2673 Professor Callahan June 18, 2013 The Do’s and Don’ts on Warrants The usage of search warrants will prevent evidence that has been collected to be used in a court of law to help convict the suspect that is suspected of committing a crime. Not all searches require a search warrant though. There is always an exception to the rules. If an officer has probable cause, a warrant is not always needed. As well as, if an officer asks a person if s/he can search their car, and the individual agrees, there is no need for a warrant.
Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), the people are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, . . . and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . .
Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”. Based on your observation of the marijuana plants, do you need a search warrant to enter and search the house and the resident? If yes, what is the basis for this legal requirement? If no, what is the justification for this exception to the search warrant requirement? 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.
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.
Terry vs Ohio In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits a law enforcement officer to stop, detain, and frisk persons who are suspected of criminal activity without first obtaining their consent, even though the officer may lack a warrant to conduct a search or Probable Cause to make an arrest. Now known as a Terry stop, this type of police encounter is constitutionally permissible only when an officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity may be a foot or that a given suspect may be armed and dangerous. Terry vs. Ohio is a landmark case that was brought to the Supreme Court. It started on October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, when a police officer named Martin McFadden observed two men standing outside a store front window. He watched one of the men walk down the street pausing to look into the store window when he reached the end of the street the man turned around and proceeded to walk back, pausing at the same store front window.
In the case of Samuels (1999), courts held that Samuels' conduct of walking slowly, looking into houses and looking at the officers, was not grounds for 'reasonable suspicion'. Also, there are 3 safeguards under PACE which the police have to follow, these are: the officer must say his name and station before conducting a stop and search, an officer can only request the removal of a person's coat and gloves, this is under S2 of PACE and the officer must make a written report, also under S2 of PACE. If an officer doesn't state his name and station then the stop and search is unlawful. This was seen in the case of DPP v Osman (1999) when Osman was found not guilty of assaulting the police officer because he didn't give his name and station. There are 3 other acts which the police can stop and search you under.
In U.S. v. Ursery (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court held that forfeiture in addition to criminal punishment did not violate _________. In a search incident to a lawful arrest, officers may search the area within the arrestee's area of _________ control. In Bond v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court held that manipulating or squeezing a suspect's opaque. soft luggage was a Fourth Amendment
MIDTERM 1 Running Head: MIDTERM Midterm Project Search and Seizure Linda Branstrom Kaplan University CJ 299: Associates Capstone in Criminal Justice Professor Terry Campbell April 22, 2012 MIDTERM 2 Abstract It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few specifically established exceptions. The courts have outlined a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement including but not limited to, consent searches, searches of vehicles and, inventory searches. One exception the court has expressly and repeatedly refused to recognize is a general
B Jackson CJ299 Associate Capstone in Criminal Justice November 17, 2011 Search and Seizure: A look into the Criminal Justice System Kaplan University Online Campus November 17, 2011 Author: Barbara Jackson Abstract 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 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(U.S. Constitution). An analytical approach of when these rights appear violated based on the distinction between consent required versus nonconsensual justification, defining the principles of mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the searches associated with persons, residences, other locations not under suspects’ control and searches after an arrest is made. Through the scenario provided the impact of repercussions that can occur if not properly implemented will be discussed. Introduction Picture what it feels like to be arrested based on evidence from a search and seizure. This essay will examine the protocol for search and seizure, legal justifications for searches, citations and examples of court cases, exclusionary rule of evidence, difference of evidence between the two residences and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and how all of these relate to the scenario provided.