NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... that are in plain view. This exception generally applies only to a fleeing felon. If the police are pursuing a suspect for a misdemeanor or a non-jail able offense, or other minor infraction, hot pursuit will ordinarily not apply. The sixth warrantless search is Search Incident to Arrest. When a person is placed under arrest, the police may search the person and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm the officer.
If the person is taken to jail, the police may search to make sure that weapons or contraband are not brought into the jail. (This is called an inventory search. ) Inventory searches also frequently involve a search of the arrested persons car (if it is being held by the police) and personal effects on the theory that the police need a precise record of the persons property to avoid claims of theft. Seventh exception is Searches necessary to protect the safety of the public. The police dont need a warrant if they have reasonable fear that their safety, or that of the public, is in imminent danger. For instance, an officer who suspected a bomb-making operation while walking his beat might be justified in entering immediately and seizing the ingredients. Finally, there are Consent searches. If the police ask your permission to search your home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you agree, the search is considered consensual, and they dont need a warrant.
The police typically obtain a persons consent by threatening to detain him / her while they obtain the warrant. In Florida vs. Jimeno, 500 U. S. 248 (1991), the Court approved the search of a paper bag, found on the floor of a car, for narcotics, after the defendant had given consent to a general search of his car. The court concluded that, based on these facts, it was reasonable for the searching officer to believe the scope of the consent given permitted him to open the bag. The defendant knew the purpose of the search was to look for drugs, and it was objectively reasonable to assume drugs could be found there.
In any occurrence, absolute facts must be distinguished before enacting a stop, and these facts must be expanded before a search and seizure is conducted. A person may not be immediately searched once he is detained. However, Terry vs. Ohio allows for a protective patron of a persons clothing when suspicious activity alerts the officer to some danger. Any search under Terry vs. Ohio must be used to discover weapons, though, not evidence of a crime.
As in the case Minnesota vs. Dickerson, the defendant was seen evasively leaving a building known for cocaine traffic. The officers ordered the man to stop and submitted him to a patron. A lump was detected in a coat pocket and taken by an officer during the probe. The object was removed and identified as cocaine. This stop and patron was ruled constitutional, but the seizure of the drug was suppressed.
The officer never thought the lump to be a weapon; therefore, the continued exploration of the pocket was unconstitutional. Only after its illegal removal was the lump recognized as cocaine. To further examine the thin line as to what constitutes legal or illegal probable cause, the Supreme Court adjudicated Brown vs. Texas and Michigan vs.
Defillippo. In Brown vs. Texas, two police officers arrested a man who refused to identify himself and explain what he was doing in an alley. The premise for the arrest was a Texas statute that makes refusal of identity and addresses a criminal act.
However, the person must be lawfully stopped. The officers claimed that the man had been approaching another bystander but upon observing the police, he walked away in the opposite direction. Chief Burger stated, Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellants right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference. So, the conviction was overturned. Another case similar is Michigan vs.
Defillippo. Detroit police stumbled upon a man and woman in an alley. The woman was in process of lowering her pants. Officers requested identity from the man, which was adamantly refused. The police then conducted a patron search, which produced the discovery of narcotics. In this instance the conviction was upheld because here the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the suspects conduct had violated the ordinance.
The respondent was also present with a woman describing the circumstance to warrant further investigation under the ordinance. It is by law to identify oneself when asked to do so by a police authority. Moreover, the respondents refusal to identify himself as the ordinance required was a direct violation of the law. In the case involving consent searches misinterpretation of the law is illustrated in United States vs.
Whitfield. Whitfield's mother refused to sign a written consent form but allowed FBI agents to conduct a search of her sons room. The agents had confirmed that Mrs. Whitfield owned the home, her son was not paying the rent, and his bedroom door was not locked. Accordingly, the agents believed that they had received a legal consent. The Circuit Court of D.
C. disagreed, however. This appellate court proclaimed that although the agents truly believed Mrs. Whitfield could give an affirmative consent, the agents had misinterpreted the law in this situation because the mother had no authority to allow a search of her sons room. A case involving searches and seizures unconstitutionally is described in Rawlings vs. Kentucky (448 U.
S. 98). In this case, marijuana seeds were in plain view of police officers legally on the premises. The occupants were told that they could leave the house only if they consented to a search. Consent was not given.
Police then requested a warrant to search the house and planned on using that warrant to search the occupants. Forty-five minutes passed before the warrant was presented. However, the Supreme Court said that even this delay was unacceptable and detaining the persons until the warrant was issued violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for the occupants. In the Bill of Rights smith stated: The Fourth Amendment provides language about governmental search and / or seizures based upon probable cause. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees every citizen the equal protection of laws and that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The case was in direct violation of these rights of the occupants; therefore the search was deemed unconstitutional.
Conclusively, search and seizure is a powerful tool for law enforcement but one that any person would take as a personal insult. I believe Law enforcement personnel must be educated with the legal and illegal procedures of this investigative process for the legislative views this intrusive method seriously. Search and seizure seems to be of a complex method of incriminating an individual that gives the law enforcement agencies more emphasis on the legal and correct way to execute this particular technique. Evaluating from the cases I have studied the evidence and facts are objective enough to label some of these law enforcement officers as incompetent and a negative reflection of the agency.
My greatest concern for the authorities is to suppress their actions if they do not fully understand the concept and interpretation of the law. Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: supreme court, search and seizure, probable cause, police officers, law enforcement
Research essay sample on Search And Seizure Probable Cause
