An exigent circumstance can be defined as a situation in which an urgent police action is needed. According to the Fourth Amendment, police officers should not invade someone’s home without permission or a warrant. Getting into someone’s home without the warrant is forbidden unless there is an instance or circumstance that calls for the police to get to the house due to the urgency of the action to be taken. The police are allowed to get into someone’s house under some conditions which can be termed as exigent circumstances, which that warrant is ignored and the entry to be justified. These circumstances include the following:
(a) The police in pursuit of someone
An exigent circumstance that allows the police officers to enter an individual’s house without a warrant is justified when the police are in pursuit of someone who is fleeing away. For example, in United States v. Santana case, Santana fled away to her house when the police were trying to pursue her. They entered her house, and the case was considered an exigent circumstance. The police officers reasonably believed that the suspect was going to dispose the drugs
…show more content…
Public safety is considered as a top priority, and when there is an issue that threatens the public safety, the police can enter into someone’s home without a warrant, and the circumstance is justified as an exigent circumstance (Barkan and Bryjak, 2011). To further explain, The Emergency Aid doctrine even protects police officers that intentionally acted in good faith, even if their assumptions were wrong about the so called critical situation. However, the police officer cannot deceit in order to achieve their goal and one must provide a reasonable case to prove if the emergency was life threatening and protection and safety was needed at that
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case
From a psychological standpoint, Dellen Millard’s actions and personality are clearly not typical of the average human. Millard was extremely affluent, yet committed murder in order to steal a car he could have easily bought. ‘Why?’ is the question which psychologists would ask. Millard was raised wealthy, educated, and privileged; he was not abused as a child, nor was he denied affection or care. Unlike many psychopaths, sociopaths, and murderers, Millard did not seem to have a troubled or traumatic life at all. What experiences in Millard’s life could have given rise to his manipulative, thrill-seeking and criminal behaviour- as well as his apparent lack of conscience- in spite of his indulgent and ordinary upbringing? Psychology studies- and attempts to comprehend- human behaviour: the human mind, personality, and thinking. As such, psychologists would find interest in understanding the thoughts and motivation behind Millard’s cold-blooded actions. They might look towards his childhood for answers, and endeavour to discover the events in his past that shaped him to be the person he
Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp ?because she had been belligerent.? Dragging Mapp upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter?s bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement.
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case.
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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
Was the intrusion based on a lawful objective, such as a valid arrest, detention, search, frisk, community warden guardian of mentally ill, defense of an officer or a citizen, or to prevent escape? If these answer yes then an officer may have legal ability to use the levels of force listed below to apprehend the suspect. Another list of things to consider when determining if it was a lawful use of force is; was the use of force relative to the person’s confrontation? Was there a crucial need to terminate the condition? Even though there is no duty to retreat, could the officer have used lesser force and still safely accomplish the lawful objective? These are the questions that the jury need to answer to determine if they should side with or against the officer in any court case brought to them that deals with such a controversial topic as this.
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.
In order for application of the exclusionary rule to be appropriate, the deterrent value must outweigh the heavy costs of excluding relevant evidence. Police conduct that is intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent with regard to the Fourth Amendment will generally trigger application of the exclusionary rule; conversely, isolated negligence on the part of police is generally insufficient to justify the heavy costs of suppression under the exclusionary rule.
My understanding of case management comes from an accumulation of lecture, readings, and a little bit of research. At first I thought case management meant to manage a case, which it kind of does, but it is a lot of background work that goes unnoticed from the workers part. One thing for sure I can say about case management is that is a very stressful and demanding job for the worker, therefore, you have to be a responsible worker, so that your client can hopefully get the services and resources he or she may need. As a case management worker your responsibilities are many, for example you are to educate, empower and enable your client to be self sufficient.
According to the U.S. Courts, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people from searches and seizures by government officials without reasonable cause. This generally includes searching a person’s home. The exceptions to this rule include situations when the property owner gives his or her consent, there are exigent circumstances or there is probable cause, the search is related to a lawful arrest or there are items in plain