...and Article 1 Section 12 of the NY constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. A search or seizure is unreasonable when performed by the Government and not authorised by the warrant or conducted under circumstances given rise to an exception to the warrant requirement. The 4th Amendment does not prohibit, or require a warrant for reasonable searches and seizures. It is a restraint on government or state action, but does not prohibit private reasonable or unreasonable searches of seizures. The 4th Amendment does not require a warrant for searches of US citizen on foreign soil. Prob: Wife searched H briefcase and found videos in which H featured their 13 year daughter in a pornographic film. W turned the film over to a friend, a police officer, who used it to obtain an arrest warrant. H could not claim a 4th Amendment violation to suppress the film, because W is not an agent for the state, and thus there was no state action. For a warrant to issue a detached disinterest magistrate must find that the Government has demonstrated a substantial basis of probable cause. The Government must be able to show objectively that taking into account the experience and expertise of the officer, (i) for an arrest warrant it is more probable than not that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed that crime, or (ii) for a search warrant that is more probable than not that evidence of a crime or contraband presently is located in a...
Words: 3292 - Pages: 14
...5 CRJ 320 WK 3 Quiz 3 Chapter 4,5 MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. In which 1984 case did the Supreme Court define a search as “a governmental infringement of a legitimate expectation of privacy?” a. United States v. Ross c. Mapp v. Ohio b. United States v. Jacobsen d. Terry v. Ohio 2. A lane search, or partitioning the area into lanes, a. can be adapted to any number of police personnel. b. is intended to be used only with one officer. c. works well inside. d. must always be used with a traffic director. 3. Which of the following is not a goal of a search during an investigation? a. to establish that a crime was committed b. to establish when the crime was committed c. to identify who committed the crime d. to punish the offender 4. Which of the following do investigators not need to know in order to conduct an effective search? a. the legal requirements for searching b. the identity of the offender c. the elements of the crime being investigated d. the items being searched for 5. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids what type of searches and seizures? a. illegal c. unreasonable b. unsupervised d. undercover 6. In which of the following cases is a search not legal? a. The search is incidental to a lawful arrest. b. An officer stops a suspicious person and believes the person to be armed. c. An emergency exists. d. An officer conducts a search of a motorist for a driving infraction. 7. A way to determine if probable cause exists today is which test...
Words: 2519 - Pages: 11
...seizures”. At face value you may believe that this amendment provides you with total protection from an illegal search and seizure. In this paper I will demonstrate that the Fourth Amendment does not cover searches that occur in open fields or for items that are observed in plain view. In order to form an opinion on the constitutionality of a warrantless search you first need to determine what an open field is and what would be considered private property. This is known as the Open Fields Doctrine. (Wetterer, 1998) Items in open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment so they can be seized by an officer without a warrant or probable cause. Open fields do not fall within any of these categories. What does “open fields” exactly mean? Open fields encompass any open, undeveloped property that is not intimately used for dwelling (including curtilage) or business. The main residence on a piece of land, any outbuildings closely connected with and in close proximity to it, and the land immediately surrounding the residence are all considered to be within the curtilage of the land and are areas in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The status of an open field does not change even if a fence secures the property and “no trespassing” signs are erected, Oliver v. United States. (Cuddihy, 2009) In this case the police entered the property of Mr. Oliver and discovered a patch of marijuana being grown. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Oliver did not have...
Words: 1733 - Pages: 7
...Issue: Whether the fourth amendment search and seizure constitutional right was in violation in Encinitas, Ca. when Mike Pilazzio and his passenger, Mrs. Walden was pulled over after Mr. Pilazzio crossed a sold double yellow line, not giving him permission to search his belongings in result finding a purse full of crack cocaine without probable cause. Rule: 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.(1) Exclusionary rule: There are thirteen exclusions to the Fourth Amendment rule, which follows: Probable cause, Consent searches, Probation searches, Search incident to arrest, Stop & Frisk, Exigent circumstances, Plain view, Vehicle searches- the search and seizure of stolen or forfeited goods, or goods subject to a duty, and the personal effects searched or seized for evidence. If a vehicle is impounded or if there is probable cause, law enforcement does not need a warrant. Border searches, Open fields, abandoned property, Consent searches, Administrative (2) Does not support the case: Carroll v. United States Robbins v. California Does support the case: Knowles v. Iowa Wyoming v. Houghton History: On the morning of November 12, 2013, Mr. Mike Pilazzio...
Words: 2277 - Pages: 10
...paper of individual rights as well as public safety The police agencies have to deal with many obstacles when they have to deal with enforcing the safety of the public but also securing people’s rights as well. In this paper, it will be discussed focal points will start with statutory authority also responsibilities of government officials, security personnel, also private citizens. Next is the practice or law relating to search, seizure, as well as surveillance by police, corrections, security personnel, also private citizens. Also, compare the laws relating to the use of force by police, corrections, as well as private security. Lastly, Individual privacy rights and legislation relating to policy, practice, and procedures. In the country of the United States, which is a delegate for democracy and everything it stands for to this society. It means that the laws and regulation, give the show the will of the people also the officials in the government imitate. Also, enforce the rules and the laws according to the local, state, and as well federal rules. Shows the United States a points officials as well as, they have to swear into their position and have to pledge they will uphold the responsibilities of the job also the laws of their job. The public of the United States has to pay their taxes so that it can help to assist the government to give protection to society. Also, secure the life of people in society their property from thieves, and robbers, as well as help the government...
Words: 2153 - Pages: 9
...Should the Legal requirements for obtaining a Search Warrant be changed? By: Leonard Douzart CRJU 3402 Valdosta State University Outline I. Introduction II. Main Body a) My background study on the legal requirements b) My proof of opinion on why it should be changed c) Comparisons from different people of why it should be changed d) The latest research of a warrant e) Factors influencing the decision of the legal requirements of why obtaining a search warrant should be changed III. Supporting Facts a) Data analysis b) Comparisons between why it should and shouldn’t be changed c) Research towards the legal requirements of search warrants IV. Conclusion a) An analytical summary of what my reasoning and fact is of obtaining a search warrant and should it be changed b) My thesis reworded to state the final paper Thesis Statement In this thesis statement we are going to explore the reasoning, should the legal requirements of obtaining a search warrant be changed. This is going to show you how it is all designed and many different examples of why it should be changed along with different cases that proves why it should be changed. The passage is going to demonstrate many sources and legal forms that result to this topic of study of why search warrants should be changed in this type of matter because to some citizens this seems to be a problem when going against their own rights. The most important...
Words: 3053 - Pages: 13
...types of search warrants. In this presentation I will talk about the different types of search warrants. Also I will discuss the process of the search warrant how it is sought and issued. I also will talk about what is probable cause. As well as the standards that is met by probable cause. A search warrant is a court order that allows a law enforcement agency to search your home, car, or the office for evidence. It must state what they are allowed to search in home, car and so forth on and what they are looking for according to http://answers.ask.com/reference/other/what_is_a_search. To get a search warrant the officer must persuade a judge that they have probable cause to believe they will find evidence of criminal activity in the placed to be search. The officer do this through an affidavit, which is an oral or written statement made under oath according to the link http://www.streetlaw.org/en/page/340/search_warrants_what_Are_They_and_How_Do_They_Work. In the report the officer only identify the placed to be search and items that are to be seized. If a judge believes the officer provided probable cause, the judge will then issue the search warrant. If the judge does not believe the officer provided probable cause the warrant will not be issued. The following link has an example of a case where a search was conducted http://sandarose.com/2012/05/officer-arrested-for-obstructing-search-at-girlfriends-residence-2 weeks- after-his-wife-was-attacked-and robbed. Police can search...
Words: 1704 - Pages: 7
...Amendment IV (1791)- 8.) Government must have a search warrant based on probable cause Courts Divided Over Searches of Cellphones Source: The NY Times November 25, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/technology/legality-of-warrantless-cellphone-searches-goes-to-courts-and-legislatures.html?ref=searchandseizure&_r=0 This right states that government make the search and seizure warrant based on the cause. For example, if a person was accused for some crime and that person already have record of the crime before then the court will make the warrant based on that record. Sometime policies don’t need warrant such as bounty hunters, because the court already took the rights of the person who is being accused away. This right basically protects law enforcement more than citizens. Judges and lawmakers discussed about the legality of searching through civilians’ cell phones without a warrant. A man was put on trial for the murder of a 6 year old boy. The phone was crucial because it served as a possible leading evidence. The phone was searched without a warrant. Criminal or not from the U.S.; they are still protected and under its safeguard. Even though the person is a murderer and law enforcers go through his private property, they should get a search warrant because he or she is still a citizen of the United States, therefore he or she is still protected by the law. Most law enforcers sees this as obstruction to the path of justice, but they should...
Words: 1652 - Pages: 7
...and effects. From unreasonable search and seizures. Search warrant on a Person A search warrant gives the law enforcement officers permission to search for certain evidence in a specific place. Without a search warrant, police officers may not search a place without its owner’s consent or if the evidence is in plain view. It is supported by the Fourth Amendment “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 (Law. Cornell 2012)”. A search warrant is granted by courts where a judge needs to sign of it if he or she thinks the warrant is necessary. The officers must have probable cause when trying to obtain a warrant. When officers put in for a warrant, judges may issue the search warrant. To obtain a warrant, an officer must show that the search is justified and should have sworn statements that support their reasons, law enforcement officers must show that there is probable cause to believe a search is justified. When the judge looks at the warrant he or she must consider all of the circumstances when determine whether to sign it or not. Some judges restrict officers on when and how they perform the search. Police officers only may search if given permission to do if the person is in danger or in...
Words: 1176 - Pages: 5
...and coordinating training for divisional agents and the local police officers that have been assigned to work on a federal task force. I am assisting in the preparation of the curriculum for an upcoming two week program, which will focus on various types of searches authorized by federal law, and what is legally necessary to support these searches. Also, the process by which a search warrant is sought and issued pertaining to the Fourth Amendment Requirements. Finally, The author will define probable cause and the standard by which probable cause is met. Finally the author describes the rationale for allowing warrantless searches. This paper is informative and professionally cited. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Process by which a search warrant is sought and issued ------------------------------------------------- According to the law, a search warrant is an order written and signed by a specific court that gives authorization to law-enforcement officers to conduct a search, seizure, or arrest of a specific person, at a specific location for a specific item. When Law enforcement officers violate an individual’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment and don’t have the proper legal documentation these search and seizure and arrests are invalid. Furthermore, any evidence...
Words: 1590 - Pages: 7
...1) Identify three of the requirements for police to legally execute a search warrant. -To legally execute a search warrant law enforcement must establish probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, the items the officer seeks constitute evidence of that offense, and the items are located at the place to be searched. 2) Describe the criteria for the legal search of luggage, packages, and other personal containers. -Brief limited seizures are generally used for these types of searches, and suspects have both privacy and property rights. Opening luggage, packages, and personal containers constitutes a search and requires a warrant or an exception to the warrant. If search authority is lacking police may temporally seize the item while apply for a search warrant. 3) Yes or No. When police are executing an arrest...
Words: 420 - Pages: 2
...Unit 17-Police Powers (P3,D1) The police have powers to stop and question a person at any time, as well as search a person depending on the situation that has been bought forth. In cases where you are being stopped by a police community support officer, they are required to be in full uniform in order to have the right to stop and question someone. Higher ranked police officers don’t always need to be fully uniformed in search cases, however, a warrant card must always be shown when searching in order to justify the situation. A police officer has the right as an individual to ask any being to take off contents such as their coat, jacket or even gloves. Additionally, they are also able to ask suspects to take off other items of clothing and even items worn for religious reasons such as head-scarves or turbans. If this is the case, officers must fairly take those in question to an area away from surrounding members of the public. If the officer wants to remove more items of clothing, they must be the same sex as the person they are searching....
Words: 949 - Pages: 4
...PEOPLE V. DORIA 301 SCRA 668 Facts: North Metropolitan District, Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from two (2) civilian informants (CI) that one “Jun” was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. The Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest “Jun” in a buy-bust operation scheduled on December 5, 1995 at E. Jacinto Street in Mandaluyong City. On December 5, 1995, at 6:00 in the morning, P/Insp. Cortes designated PO3 Manlangit as the poseur-buyer and SPO1 Badua as his back-up, and the rest of the team as perimeter security. PO3 Manlangit set aside P1,600.00 as money for the buy-bust operation.. PO3 Manlangit marked the bills with his initials and listed their serial numbers in the police blotter. At 7:20 of the same morning, “Jun” appeared and the CI introduced PO3 Manlangit as interested in buying one (1) kilo of marijuana. PO3 Manlangit handed “Jun” the marked bills worth P1,600.00. “Jun” instructed PO3 Manlangit to wait for him at the corner of Shaw Boulevard and Jacinto Street while he got the marijuana from his associate. An hour later, “Jun” appeared at the agreed place where PO3 Manlangit, the CI and the rest of the team were waiting. “Jun” took out from his bag an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to PO3 Manlangit. PO3 Manlangit forthwith arrested “Jun” as SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the arrest. They frisked “Jun” but did not find the marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, “Jun” revealed that he...
Words: 9859 - Pages: 40
...are two important factors when a search is considered being reasonable. The first factor is whether the search is an intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights and the second is whether public safety an issue. Law officials have to make a tough decision when the correct time and place is conduct a search. The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure (Smith, 1999). An example is in the case of Minnesota v. Carter, when a police officer looked into a window of an apartment and observed bagging of white powder. The officer called back to the station to obtain a search warrant. In the meantime, the suspects that the police officer was watching, Carter and Johns, had left the apartment with some of the powder. The police followed them and pulled them over and searched the car and then searched the apartment. Carter and Johns were charged with controlled substance crimes. The two argued that the officer’s observation was an unreasonable search and all evidence was inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree” because the evidence would not have been found in the officer’s initial search (Smith, 1999). The court decided that the protection from the Fourth Amendment did not apply because Carter and Johns were visitors from out-of-state and not social guest. The Minnesota Supreme Court changed the conviction ruling based on the right of property owners to have other people in their...
Words: 1521 - Pages: 7
...supervisor) search Yourprop’s personal vehicle currently parked in the Company parking lot for digital evidence? Support your answer. Mr. Yourprop is guaranteed certain rights do to his residence in the United States. One of these rights is the 4th amendment which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.” Employees hired by the Makestuff Company are issued handbooks at indoctrination informing them anything brought onto the company’s property, including the employees themselves, is subject to random search for items belonging to the Company. Reasonable expectation of privacy in this situation should not apply since the handbook clearly informs employees of the company’s right to search. Furthermore the 4th amendment should not apply since Make stuff is a private company and the 4th amendment only forces government officials to acquire a warrant before searching. The statement Mr. Yourprop made “it is okay because I have a new job already and they were VERY happy to have me come from Makestuff, with ALL I have to offer.” has raised suspicions that a theft may have occurred. Due to the automobiles location on company property in combination with the employee handbook statement the company should feel safe searching the car. The company handbook statement states “anything brought onto the Company’s property, including the employees themselves, is subject to random search for items...
Words: 1506 - Pages: 7
