Preview

Essay On Search And Seizure

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1639 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Essay On Search And Seizure
Search and Seizure, Arrest and Interrogation
Search and Seizure The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, appears, 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 a critical aspect to policing due to the fact that it structures how police are to investigate crimes and suspects. In order to conduct a proper search an officer but have probable cause as to why they must search the suspects body, home or vehicle. Probable cause is the requirement found in the
…show more content…
Probable cause is usually found when there is reasonable belief that a crime has been committed which would lead to an arrest or when the evidence of a crime is presented in a place to be searched. Some circumstances may include that probable cause will justify a warrantless search or seizure. But under these circumstances the persons arrested without a warrant are to be brought before authority after the arrest for judicial determination of probable cause. The courts defined probable cause in Draper v. United States as probable cause being more than a suspicion, requiring the existence of facts that would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been committed, yet not requiring proof of guilt. Probable cause may often result from information received from reliable sources such as informants, victims, witnesses or any other independent source. However …show more content…
During an interrogation the suspect does not have the right to leave, but before the police officers interrogate the suspect they must first inform the individual of his or her rights. Officers often read the individual their Miranda rights, but the rights are to be read prior to an interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona came out in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix Arizona on charges of rape and kidnapping. After being interrogated for two hours without being advised of his rights, the officers then got a written confession from Mr. Miranda. The Supreme Court then had the conviction overturned due to the fact the Miranda’s rights had been violated prior to the confession. The basis of the Miranda rights is that coerced confessions are unconstitutional and there might be a chance that they are not true. TO avoid these types of confessions officers are encouraged to follow specific steps prior to an interrogation. Police must explain to each suspect the right they have to not incriminate themselves under the Fifth Amendment, as well as the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Even though many of these suspects will waive their rights and comply with the officers they must be knowing and it must be voluntary. If the suspects request to have a lawyer present the officers must then stop questioning the suspect until there is

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Although an arrest warrant was procured against the petitioner, he claims that the evidence seized from his home was done so without a search warrant, violating his 4th Amendment rights.…

    • 4749 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Summary

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages

    There were four different cases that were addressed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. These cases involve custodial interrogations and in each of these cases, the defendant was cut off from the outside world while they were being interrogated in a room by the police officers, detectives, as well as prosecuting attorneys. In the four cases, not even one of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights during the interrogation process. Furthermore, the questioning done in all the cases elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Their reasoning behind this decision was because it needed to be stated that he had to the right to remain silent. Not only this, but he was not told that anything that he said could be used against him in the future. These reasons were then able to prove that Miranda was not able to speak to the police freely upon his own choice of decision. One of the reasons for the decision made was because Miranda did not know he had the right to an attorney leading for him to not have full knowledge of the case and what was going on. Therefore, because the fifth amendment was not applicable to the situation that Miranda was in the prosecution should not have been able to use any of the statements that were…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Other conditions on the searches incident to arrest exception include the use of force, the search of other individuals with the arrested individual, searching the vehicle of an arrest person, contemporaneousness and inventory searches "if a government agent has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime without a warrant" because "in the time it would take to get a warrant, the car, driver and contraband or evidence could be long gone" (Harr, Hess, 2006. p. 231). The 1981 case of Robbins v. California saw the justifications for searching without a warrant. Those specifications include that the mobility of vehicles produce exigent circumstances.…

    • 310 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Facts: Hollis D. King was arrested after a search of his apartment. Local police department officers had probable cause to force entering and searching King apartment. Incident to search and arrest stemmed from a strong odor of what appeared to be burning illegal narcotics. Prior to entering the apartment, Police Officers knocked on the door and announced their presence. The occupants in the apartments did not respond. Under the suspicion of valuable evidence being destroyed the officers forced entering into the apartment. As the officers entered the apartment the odor of the burning substance became stronger. The smell of the burning substance created the exigent circumstance in the probable cause and the case at trial. Without a warrant,…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling of Miranda v. Arizona set a precedence on how future suspects would be interrogated. It makes complete sense to advise a person that is being interrogated that he or she has a right to remain silent during interrogation and that he or she has the right to have counsel present during an interrogation. It's also important that the suspect be fully aware and full understand his or her rights before the interrogation begins. -WRITTEN AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION-METHODS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT By Harvey Wallace and Cliff Roberson(CHAPTER 9 PAGE 136)…

    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    In 1966 Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark of a decision to the United States Supreme Court, in which this was passed because it had four out of five agreeing. The Court held both exculpatory and inculpatory statements in which was made in response to interrogation by the person who is in the custody of the police who will be used in a trial only if the prosecution is able to show that the accused was informed of their right to consult with a lawyer before and even during any questioning and have the right against…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In order for an admission to be admissible in court, prior to interrogation, the individual must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. In addition, the warning to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything can be used against the individual in court, and that the individual has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, and if they can not afford one, then one will be appointed to them. Also, if the individual waives his right to remain silent and for counsel to be present, the police must show that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda never knew he did not have to speak with the police was interrogated and confessed and was sentenced to jail. Later an attorney looked over the case and requested Judicial Review Claiming that Ernesto’s rights has been violated. In 1966 The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s Conviction, and ruled that if a person is going to be taken in as a suspect they must be informed that they do have a right to and attorney. The suspect also has to be informed that the do not have to speak. The supreme court also ruled that if the suspect is not informed of these right the evidence obtained before hand can not be used in court. These rights are now known as the Miranda rights.…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Chapter 6 outline

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages

    e. Human conduct rule- the requirement that some human action is required for criminal liability; thought is not sufficient…

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    This case was also impacted because the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and a self-incrimination. The police duties were to give these warnings compelled by the Constitutions Fifth Amendment “which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse” to be a witness against himself”, and Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an…

    • 1525 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In June of 1966, the outcome of the trial - Miranda v. Arizona declared that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when being placed under arrest, bringing about the creation of the Miranda Rights and forever altering all criminal arrests and police conduct. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process.…

    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Some people may even be innocent and not know their rights and get interrogated and tell the police stuff that may not be true because they were scared ,and not know they have the right to remain silent. People should have the right to remain silent because they could say something that they did not need to say. They could give themselves up and have the possibility of getting away with it. As bad as that is it happens because of the Miranda Rights. It is also important for…

    • 504 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Miranda Decision

    • 345 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in the case of Miranda v. Arizona that established that a suspect has the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights.…

    • 345 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fifth Amendment

    • 494 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Rights are you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law, you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. Basically it states that you do not have to talk if you feel like you are going to incriminate yourself during an interrogation. Also you have the right to a lawyer and if you cannot afford one, one will be given to you. You can plead the fifth which is to refuse to answer any question because the response could form self incriminating evidence.…

    • 494 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays