Kansas recognizes the plain view doctrine as an exception to the search warrant requirement. An officer may seize evidence of a crime in plain view when (1) the officer is lawfully present and (2) the evidence is immediately and apparently incriminating. The intrusion that initially places the officer in plain view of the evidence may be supported by a warrant or by any other exception to the search warrant requirement. Thus, when an officer conducts a search of a vehicle incident to the driver’s arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and happens to see a glass pipe in an unzipped makeup bag, the plain view doctrine permits him to seize the pipe. On the other hand, once it becomes clear that an apartment’s occupants are not in
Gant, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the exception did not apply because the arrestee was not near the vehicle and the arrest was for driving with a suspended license, making it unreasonable to believe that evidence relating to the crime would be found in the vehicle. Arrests on suspicion of driving while intoxicated or drug possession or trafficking, on the other hand, may justify a search of the vehicle for the intoxicant. In State v. Ewertz, the Kansas Court of Appeals considered the validity of a search incident to a lawful arrest for DUI and asserted that “[w]hether it was ‘reasonable to believe’ evidence relevant to the crime of [DUI] might be found in Ewertz’s vehicle” depended upon the interpretation of Gant’s “reasonable to believe” standard.” The Ewertz court explained that while some courts have interpreted the standard to mean that certain offenses categorically do or do not provide a reasonable belief, other courts equate the standard to reasonable suspicion. Noting that the Kansas Supreme Court has yet to interpret Gant’s “reasonable to believe” standard, the court found it unnecessary to choose between the two existing interpretations because the officer’s search would survive either standard. Thus, in Kansas, it remains unclear which reasonableness interpretation
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
Gant was arrested by Arizona police because he was driving a vehicle with a suspended license. While he was being handcuffed, officers searched his vehicle and found a gun and a bag of cocaine. During the trial, Gant petitioned to suppress the gun and cocaine because the police didn’t serve a warrant to search his vehicle, in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Prior to the Supreme Courts opinion on this case, Arizona vs. Gant, it was standard practice for police to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of a vehicle. The justifications for the search incident to arrest are to allow police to secure any weapons that the arrestee might seek to use to resist arrest or escape and preserve evidence. This case is a decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to a continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. ...
Exigent circumstances are when immediate action needs to be taken. When a cop pulls someone, and the officer needs to search the vehicle immediately and doesn’t have time for a search warrant to get there or be issued. If the vehicles driver or other passengers are going to destroy evidence, then the cop needs to get everyone out of the vehicle search them and the vehicle. It is the cop’s discernment and the cop has to have probable cause. Now the only thing that is needed is probable cause for a vehicle stop, this justifies a search and seizure on a vehicle.
A warrantless search voids the constitutional right of the citizen hence, all the evidence obtained will be evicted by the court of law. While the statement holds true, there are situation where a officer of the law does not require a warrant. "Plane view exception", "Consent", and "Search Incident to Lawful Arrest" are three out of the six exception to the warrant requirement (NPC, Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement). One of the case where the judge ruled out in favor of the defendant for warrantless search is the case of "Rodriguez v. Unites States." The foundation of the case was based upon the timing from when the ticket was issued for a traffic violation to when the dog was called to sniff the car (Constitution Daily, Rodriguez v. United States). While the officer claimed the delay was caused by waiting on the backup, the exception does not fall under the
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
The Supreme Court has held that vehicle searches are permitted if the arrestee is unsecured and is reaching distance from the passenger compartment or if the vehicle would have evidenced related to the arrest. Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 999 (2014). Searches based on information received from a seized cell phone must be permitted by warrant. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009).
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
When is a search not a search? The Fourth Amendment was made to protect prevent unwanted search and seizure. Were DLK’s rights violated by using a thermal imager without a warrant? The Fourth Amendment protects citizens rights from unlawful search and seizure. In the case of DLK, the supreme court had to decide if the government went to far. The government went to far because the search violated the Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully obtaining information without a warrant.
modern law, they have a variety of items, including intoxicating liquors, gambling implements, counterfeiters' tools, burglars' tools, smuggled goods, obscene literature, narcotics, illegal firearms and any article the possession of which is a crime or which may be used in evidence. (Encarta Online) The warrant must specify the place where the search is to be made and the property to be seized. An officer cannot get a warrant from a judge in any circumstance. (Grolier Encyclopedia) The officer may have to give a reasonable cause. As ruled in the case of Illinois v. Gates in 1983, ?to establish probable cause, one must show a probability of criminal activity; a prima facie hearing is not required.? (Illinois v. Gates) The accused has the right to fight the grounds when the war...
Under the California Penal Code, officers are granted permission to search Johnson under the conditions of his probation. While acting upon this, they discovered multiple areas of the house in which controlled substances were hidden. Officers argued that by searching Johnson without a warrant, they prevented the potential destruction of evidence.
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
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.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.