Is that a home or a vehicle?
Jenifer R. Roberts
Brown Mackie College
In this paper I will be discussing the Carroll doctrine. The range of the Carroll doctrine, and the basis of the doctrine. In this doctrine a cop has to have probable cause. This doctrine also falls under the Fourth Amendment. I will be informing you on what the law considers a readily automobile, what the officer will determine is a home, and when a home is a vehicle. The Carroll doctrine started in the case Carroll v the United States. The Carroll doctrine is a doctrine that has a warrantless search of a readily automobile. This doctrine is also considered as “the automatic mobile exception” (Ferdico, Fradella, & Totten, 2013). There are two
…show more content…
When the cops impound a vehicle they have to take an inventory of what is in the vehicle for protection, legal responsibility, and usefulness. An impounded vehicle is in the police’s possession, and they move it to a safe location such as a garage, or the police lot. 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. What is the difference between a home and a home that is considered a readily automobile? This is simple. These are the questions the court asks to determine whether it’s a home or vehicle. Where the vehicle is located at, is the vehicle able to move, is the vehicle licensed, is the vehicle hooked up to utilities, and does it have easy access to a road that is
The officers had done an added search by moving the stereos without Hick’s permission. The whole reason for the officers to be there was to search for weapons and evidence not to search for a missing or stolen stereo.
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).
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
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.
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
Criminal Law. (n.d.). What is the officer looking for leading up to and during a dui arrest? . Retrieved from http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/drunk_driving/officer_detention.htm
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).
This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor by the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth, depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
"Stop and Frisk." Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 9. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 391-392. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case.
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. 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.
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.
Within this essay, I will explain the three principles linked to the standards in the area of criminal justice. I'll explain the "slippery slope" and its connection and effects on the police department using some examples of each. There are three main principles that are concerning public crime: society-at-large hypothesis, structural or affiliation hypothesis, and rotten apple hypothesis.
In contrast, the federal principles authorize a government attorney to contemplate noncriminal dispositions even in response to a serious activity. In light of this difference, an English policeman would doubtlessly disagree that the deterrent effect of prosecution, or the suspect’s culpability in connection with the offense are subjects he should consider in deciding whether to prosecute. He would pass that responsibility to the judge for consideration on disposition.