They came to an apartment building where they smelled marijuana coming from one of the doors. After knocking and identifying themselves as the police, they heard noises that they described as shuffling as if to destroy evidence. Police then kicked the door in and entered the apartment. Upon entering the apartment, police found drugs in plain view. During another search, police found even more evidence.
“For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view. Under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, the appropriateness of every warrantless search is decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the defendant's privacy interests against the reasonable needs of law enforcement under the circumstances” (G K. Hill, 2005). Another exception to warrant requirements as it pertains to the above article is that the video released shows there was a lack of physical harm as seen on George Zimmerman. This was important to the prosecution because Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin attacked him and his death was a result of self defense. In conclusion, authority’s base warrants on probable cause which are only necessary in a small percentage of cases.
The officer then spun Terry around while patting him down and found a weapon. Terry tried to get the weapon dropped due to illegal search and seizure but was denied due to the fact that an officer is justified in conducting a brief search of a person whom is found to be potentially dangerous. Before an officer can interrogate a person according to the sixth amendment, they must be told the right to a counsel. This comes about after the Gideon v Wainwright case in 1961. A burglary had occurred at a pool lounge.
Upon reviewing the facts of Bills case, Sid didn’t arrest Bill until he saw the shaving gel in Bills bag. As stated earlier, it it not evident whether Sid saw Bill not pay for it. If he did not, then a purchase receipt should be required as payment proof. If not, then in accordance with section (b), Sid could lawfully arrest Bill. However, it is ‘exercisable only if--(a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question;…’.
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.
It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),
During the initial arrest they were not informed about what crime they had been arrested for, which they should have been. Once the boys were at the station they were not read their miranda rights, but they were asked if they knew their right before the Sherriff started to interrogate them. After a few question they realized what they were being booked. During the booking process they did not show them being formally booked which consists of giving their names, being told of the charges against them, giving fingerprints, or photographs being entered on the police blotter (McGraw-Hill,
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.
Starting with the way in which the police present the suspect to the witness. Often, before any identification is made the witness will see the suspect wanted for questioning in handcuffs or in the back of a police car. The natural assumption is that the officers must have further incriminating evidence on this person, so he must be the perpetrator. What many experts say is the better practice is to use a double-blind procedure. The person showing the photos to the witness should not know the identity of the suspect.