Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money. Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance.
In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).
The exclusionary rule explain that collected evidence must not be a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights or else it could be inadmissible in court. The four exceptions to the Exclusionary rule are the Good-Faith exception, the Plain-View Doctrine, Clerical Errors Doctrine, and the Emergency Searches of Property. The exceptions are used to protect officers if they do something in good faith or in emergency. However these exceptions are only used to protect the officers who acted in good faith. This exceptions cannot help officers if they acted with malicious intent. The “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree” Doctrine is used to discourage police from using illegal means to gain evidence.
The Fourth Amendment is “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.” In other words, it is against the law for police to search any person without probable cause and an issued warrant. (Cartoon Surveillance) This protects the privacy of the innocent people that may not be considered guilty. However, giving the people a right to a warrant is only giving them an advantage, while the police and the government have a disadvantage. Issuing warrants take away time and privilege for police. Needing a warrant may unable police to some investigations as well. The Fourth Amendment was created for safety and privacy reasons, but has deterred the efficacy of law-enforcement; needing a search warrant makes gathering evidence harder, police investigations have been delayed, and the Exclusionary Rule causes some investigations to be inadmissible.
The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.
Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the
The exclusionary rule is a deterrent against searches and seizures. Any evidence that is gained through an illegal search or seizure is now inadmissible in criminal proceedings, per the exclusionary rule. Supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that it helps prevent illegal searches and seizures against law enforcement. Those against the exclusionary rule argue that the exclusionary rule keeps criminals out of jail and there are other preventative measures such as suspending police officers without pay, dismissing them from a case, or in extreme circumstances terminating employment of officers who violate the Fourth Amendment.
Two additional times police do not need warrants are during hot pursuit and in plain view. Hot pursuit is when a law official is chasing a criminal and the criminal runs onto private property. The police can also take any evidence found during the chase. In plain view means cops can take any evidence in plain view as long as the police are where they can legally
The exclusionary rule is a lawful principle that the United States use, which expresses that the confirmation that was powerfully utilized by the police can 't be utilized in a criminal trial. The motivation behind why this is done it’s for the security of the established rights. In addition, the exclusionary rule states that in the Fifth Amendment no one "should be denied of life, freedom, or property without due procedure of law." The exclusionary rule additionally expresses that in the Fourth Amendment it is intended to shield residents from unlawful pursuits and seizures. It also applies to the infringement of the Sixth Amendment, which ensures the privilege to counsel. So whether a man is a United States resident or a settler the exclusionary guideline is connected to everybody living inside
The Fourth Amendment was created in response to the British practice of issuing a general warrant—warrants that were not limited in scope. The ultimate check that the Amendment places on law enforcement is one of “reasonableness.” This creates two broad categories of searches: searches that would be unreasonable without a warrant and searches that do not require a warrant. For example, warrants are not relevant in the context of school administration. However, warrants have historically always been required in the course of ordinary law enforcement.” Searches have generally always required warrants, but over time the Court created exceptions.
The following essay will outline the variances of two case” Illinois v. Gates and Spinelli v. United States. It will discuss the Supreme Court requires to establish probable cause for a warrant.
This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned.
Most people know the fourth amendment as a protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The constitution its self says “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…” (). What this means in terms of a search is if law enforcement wants to search your house, vehicle or residence they must obtain permission, or a search warrant. A warrant is issued by a judge or magistrate and it will require probable cause which would be a reasonable belief or fair probability that something illegal will be found or evidence to a crime will be found. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132  In
Facts: On the morning of August 7th, 1999 at 3:16 a.m., a Baltimore Police Officer conducted a stop on a passenger car for speeding. As the officer approached the car he noticed it was occupied by three males one of which was the respondent, Joseph Jermaine Pringle located in the front passenger seat. As the driver retrieved the vehicle’s proof of registration for the glove compartment located in front of Pringle, the officer noticed what appeared to be a large amount of currency rolled up in the glove compartment in plain view. After obtaining the driver’s license and registration, the police officer went back to his patrol car and conducted a check for warrants and prior traffic violations.