Preview

Criminal Justice: Warrants, Seizures, And Searches

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
3089 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Criminal Justice: Warrants, Seizures, And Searches
Warrants, Seizures, and Searches
Criminal Justice 3100

A very large and debatable part of Criminal Evidence and Procedure that has and can cause many issues is warrants. A warrant is “a written order issued by a judicial officer or other authorized person commanding a law enforcement officer to perform some act incident to the administration of justice” (Warrant 1). The first statement of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures appeared in The Rights of the Colonists and a List of Infringements and Violations of Rights. The Rights of the Colonists was written in 1772 by Samuel Adams. It consisted of lists of natural rights, rights as Christians, and rights as subjects. The List of Infringements and Violations
…show more content…
This is another exception to needing a warrant. In inadvertence, an officer can be interested in or expect to find a certain item, even if it is not listed in the warrant, and it still be a valid seizure. In plain view cases, police have prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he inadvertently came across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. However, a limitation to the plain view rule is that plain view alone is never enough to justify warrantless seizure of evidence. The item 's imcriminating characteristic(s) must be immediately apparent. In Horton v. California, a police sergeant investigating a robbery had a warrant to search petitioner Horton’s home. The warrant issued specified a search for the proceeds of the robbery, specifically, three rings. However, while weapons had been described in the police report, the warrant did not include them. The sergeant entered the petitioner’s home. He did not find the three rings, but he did find weapons in plain view and seized them. The issue was whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was …show more content…
This purpose is to protect the officer from weapons and to prevent destruction of evidence. An exception to the is a protective sweep of a home is allowed if officers have reasonable articulable suspicion that the house is harboring a person posing danger to those on the scene. Officers should be able to do whatever will keep them and others safe whether or not it violates someone 's fourth amendment rights. In searches of a car pursuant to a valid arrest, officers can search the passenger compartment of a car and anything inside even when arestee is already in the police car. Police may search inside of a vehicle when the officer has reasonable belief that the car contains evidence of the offense the suspect is arrested for. An officer cannot search if he only gave a traffic citation and did not arrest the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 at 351.…

    • 793 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As stated in Warden v. Hayden (1967) officers that are executing a search warrant may search for the items in any place or thing where the evidence could be found on the premises of where the warrant was issued. The precedent…

    • 500 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The discovery and search are procedures affirmed by cases New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, (1981), Arizona v. Gant, 566 U.S. 332, (2009) and Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, (1999). In the case of New York v. Belton, the court ruled that officers can search a car and any compartments in the car after conducting an arrest. This allows the search of the vehicle in the case of Rounds, because he was in custody in the patrol car, and he was arrested. Arizona v. Gant held that the search of a vehicle, after its occupant is arrested, is permissible if it is reasonable to believe that there is evidence linked to the arrest. Since Officer Towns first arrested and placed Rounds in the patrol car and then moved to question the opaque bag, he was in his right, especially because there was reason to believe that the contents of the bag could be linked to evidence of Rounds’s past crime: possession of marijuana. The prosecution cites Wyoming v. Houghton as well. This case dictates that as long as there is probable cause to search a vehicle, all following searches, including those of its contents are legal. Since there was probable cause to search Rounds’s vehicle, the recovery and seizure of the opaque bag was constitutional.…

    • 1222 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Search and Seize Paper

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The most famous search and seizure is Mapp v. Ohio. This case happens back in 1961, March 29 and end on June 19, 1961. Which were an unreasonable searches and seizures what relates on the fourth Amendment. When the police received a tip that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive, they immediately went to her house and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and under his advice she refused to give them entry because they did not have a warrant. Later on that day more officers came to her door and demanded that they be allowed to enter her house. After Mapp refused, they opened a door to the house through forced entry. Knock down her door completely. Mapp confronted them and demanded to see the search warrant. The police waved a piece of paper in the air claiming it was the warrant and Mapp grabbed it and put it down her shirt. The police eventually got the "warrant" back from Mapp. Also when the cop took the paper back for the warrant for her Mapp was taking a deep thought on how was that was right for him to not let her see the information about the warrant. Next, Mapp was cuffed her feet and went on to search her entire house for the fugitive. When they reached her basement they found a trunk containing a small collection of pornographic books, pictures, and photographs. Mapp said the trunk was left in the basement by a previous tenant and was not aware of its contents. The officers arrested Mapp for violating an Ohio law which prohibited the possession of obscene material. On her arrest she knows the laws for Ohio but they didn’t even give her time to discuss or tell who use to live in their home before her. No fugitive or any evidence of one was ever found at the house. Nothing but pic what Mapp didn’t have a clue who they belong to. At her trial in the Court room, Mapp was charged based on the evidence that was presented by the police. Mapp's attorney questioned the police about the…

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    While whites who have done nothing wrong generally have little need to fear constitutional violations by the police, this is decidedly untrue for blacks. Blacks attract undesirable police attention whether they do anything to bring it on themselves or not. This makes "driving while black" a most unusual issue of constitutional criminal procedure: a search and seizure question that directly affects a large, identifiable group of almost entirely innocent…

    • 70 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    I honestly believe that the officer was on legal grounds to search anywhere in the vehicle because he was given the consent to search by…

    • 602 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Search and Seizure

    • 875 Words
    • 4 Pages

    stop which she did have reason to do. For a traffic stop you really don’t need all…

    • 875 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    If the police suspect that a home contains marijuana, they must first obtain a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment, unless there are exigent circumstances such as destruction of evidence, hot pursuit, or some other exception that applies.…

    • 1245 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Exclusionary Rule

    • 1042 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Evidence obtained by a police officer in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently found invalid may be admissible. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). It is necessary that a reasonably well-trained officer would have believed that the warrant was valid. This has come to be known as the “good faith” or Leon exception to the exclusionary rule. Many states, however, have rejected this exception.…

    • 1042 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    • a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be "justifie…

    • 1169 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    There are many cases of unreasonable search and seizures which exist. For example, if government officials were to go into a man’s house, whom they suspected of dealing Mariana, but didn’t have a good reason to believe so or a warrant, and had taken his illegal Mariana plants then that would be an example of unreasonable search and seizure. Another example of unreasonable search and seizure would be if police officers were to inspect a person’s car at a traffic stop and take belonging inside because they believe they were illegal possessions; this is unreasonable search and seizure because they did not have a good reason to search.…

    • 439 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Rules for searches conducted in plain smell are complex and varied based on the circumstances and location of the search. Under the plain smell doctrine, an officer can use his sense of smell as probable cause to search if there is an articulable belief that the origination of the odor is an illegal substance, or if it indicates an exigent circumstance. Plain smell is a principle under the plain view rule, which basically states that evidence in plain view of an officer is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, as “seeing” the evidence in that capacity does not constitute a “search”. For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the following requirements must be met (Horton v. California, (1990) 496 U.S. 128,136):…

    • 1555 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In criminal cases, there is always a need for evidence to convict the suspected criminal of breaking the law; however, because people have an expectation of privacy, warrants, legal permission to obtain evidence, are required before searching and/or seizing someone's things, writings, electronic data, etc. without the permission of the person being targeted. Before a warrant can be issued, there must be probable cause, sufficient reason to believe that a person committed a crime, present. This prevents people's privacy from being violated unnecessarily; however, there are some exceptions to this requirement. If the situation is deemed an emergency, then a warrant is not required, which means that it is possible that a person's right to privacy could be violated regardless of the warrant…

    • 593 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Warrant requirement: To avoid illegal searching or seizing of someone's property, the law enforcement provides search warrants. For getting a search warrant , the first and foremost thing to law enforcement is to have a specific cause and it has to support oath and they should describe where they are going to search and what all the items they will seize. After all these things then judge will examine the cause that is proposed by law enforcement and can give a permission i.e search warrant. There are three different type of warrants exist. They are: • A knock-and-announce warrant • No-knock warrants •…

    • 546 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Law enforcement can use probable cause to search your person and property; how to obtain this would be observation, sight, sound, use of K-9 dogs for smell and information from witnesses are also facts and circumstantial evidence. There is not set amount of information on how much evidence is needed to be probable, once in court the judge will base the finding on the Fourth Amendment, the civilian’s rights, situations and prior cases if any. With reasonable suspicion if you are in a high crime area and you see someone that may have a record and you suspect they have committed a robbery the officer can check the person for weapons. If appointed to the Supreme Court Mapp vs Ohio would not be overturned. Even though many people have been falsely accused of a crime that was committed with the evidence that was collected illegally, I believe that it is still in good standing. I have a good friend whose husband John, who has been incarcerated due to evidence that was used against him that was not his.…

    • 1010 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays