Rptr. 3d 105). The ruling stands, an electronic storage device found on a person at the time of arrest can be searched incident to arrest, regardless of time, when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found on the phone, and the evidence seized from the phone is relevant to the crime of arrest. Indication of any other crime separate from the current investigation at hand cannot be used as evidence against the arrestee. It is so ordered.
He had no right to move Mr. Hicks’ items, the officers where there to make an arrest not to search the area or to touch Mr. Hicks’ p... ... middle of paper ... ...ke was not getting a search warrant, and going beyond the original search. Overall this was a great case to read. Arizona v. Hicks held that the 4th Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. Again the major facts of this case were that the police had initial entry into Hick’s apartment. Even though it took place without a warrant.
It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
This court was granted a writ of certiorari. The government contended that the New York state troopers at the time were agents of the United States. The defendants contend that their was no probable cause and that the state troopers are to be deemed agents of the United States because section 26 of the prohibition act imposes the duty of arrest and seizure where liquor is being illegally transported. They also argued that state and federal agents were working together which in that case evidence obtained through wrongful search and seizure by state officials CO-operating with federal agents must be excluded. But it was held admissible and the idea was excluded from the case because their wasn't a federal agent present at the search and seizure.
Terry which he claimed that his Fourth Amendment which protects all citizens from unreasonable search without a warrant was violated from the moment the officer searched him. Terry appealed the case to the Supreme Court in 1967. The case came also to be known as the “stop and frisk” case. The reason why the name was given is because the officers are only allowed to frisk suspects not search them. The differences between a pat down and a search is that in a pat down, the officer can only pad the individual for hard items they may have inside their pockets.
In the case R.v.Piscopo it was demonstrated that an accused can be convicted upon circumstantial evidence. The accused can be convicted using all of the aforementioned cases. Another issue is that if this case becomes precedent it would open a "floodgate" or loophole in the law where other criminals may escape through. This would allow for more dangerous dealers of narcotics, who operate their business "long distance" to escape prosecution because they never actually had the narcotics in their possession. Appellant arguments A person should not be stigmatized by conviction for a criminal offense they did not actually commit..
Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement. A search and seizure by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present. Such a search or seizure is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from the unlawful search may not be introduced in court. Detention is a term used by certain governments and their military to refer to individuals held in custody.
law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." The supreme court concluded that no law enforcement officer can conduct a stop and frisk unless they have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime. Police officer Martin McFadden observed a grou... ... middle of paper ... ...between normal activity and criminal. A solution to that maybe is only a police officer that has gone through some kind of extra training thus becomes certified to stop and frisk. I do not think the stop and frisk law is for every police officer; not everyone can handle power.
What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Searches conducted without warrants have been held unlawful notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause, for the Constitution requires that the deliberate impartial judgment of a judicial officer be interposed between the citizen and the police (Maddex 201). The FBI agents found out t... ... middle of paper ... ...e court made some requirements for electronic eavesdropping. Most of them were put in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney, the state has a heavy burden to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege. A valid waiver is not presumed simply from silence. Warnings are a judicial prophylactic to protect the fundamental right against compelled self-incrimination because of the oppressive nature of station house questioning. This case does not hamper police officers in investigating crime because general on-the-scene questioning is not affected. The majority notes that once an individual chooses to remain silent or asks to first see an attorney, any interrogation should cease.