ipl-logo

Chapter 4: Criminal Investigatory Search Warrants

579 Words3 Pages

Chapter 4 is titled "Criminal Investigatory Search Warrants." Search warrant laws are found in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The elements of a search warrant include: (1) an order in writing, (2) issued by a proper judicial authority, (3) in the name of the people, (4) directed to a law enforcement officers, (5) commanding the officer to search for certain personal property, and (6) commanding the officer to bring that property before the judicial authority named in the warrant. Neutral judicial officers such as clerks of court, magistrates, complaint justices, judges, and justices of the peace are allowed to issue search warrants in their permitted jurisdictions. They must have probable cause before they can authorize a search warrant, which is usually done through an affidavit submitted by the law …show more content…

They differ from regular search warrants in that anticipatory warrants depend on a trigger condition, meaning that there must be evidence that the triggering event will take place. A Franks hearing occurs when a police officer knowingly gets a warrant issued under false pretenses. During the hearing, the evidence seized under the warrant can be suppressed through the Exclusionary Rule. Redaction or severability, also known as partial suppression, occurs when a warrant contains clauses that are not constitutionally adequate. Instead of suppressing all evidence seized under these warrants, the courts allow for the suppression only of evidence seized under the clauses that aren't constitutionally sufficient. The officer that a search warrant is directed towards normally has to be present during a search. However, this is not always the case as deputies can execute search warrants without a sheriff present, if that is who it is directed

Show More
Related
455 Words | 2 Pages

They have also said that it is reasonable for any officer to do an immediate area search of where that individual is to make sure that they can not grab anything for a weapon like for example a knife. The Supreme Court clearly notes in its opinion that such searches have to happen in the immediate area of arrest and any such search outside that area must be made with a search warrant. In Chimel case the officers could have patted down Chimel and then done a search of the immediate area to make sure that no weapons were hiding around. But once they began looking all around the house that requires a search warrant. The Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court’s

Read More
510 Words | 3 Pages

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Read More
695 Words | 3 Pages

Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the

Read More
90 Words | 1 Pages

P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P alleges that she was in her kitchen when MOS broke her front door and entered the apartment and pushed her against the wall. P alleges that MOS handcuffed her and Noel Tartlaon, Noel Tartlaon, Jr. and Farrow Wright (non-parties). Defendant MOS Jose Peinan states that MOS were executing a search warrant obtain after confidential informant bought drugs form Jumaane, (non-party). MOS Peinan states that Jumane was arrested in the lobby and narcotics were recovered from him.

Read More
157 Words | 1 Pages

In Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 PA. 441 (1968), on November 16, 1964, at about 11:30 a.m. four detectives went to appellant 's home with a body warrant for appellant and a search warrant for the premises. The complaint for the search warrant recited that the affiant, Detective John McCrory, deposed that there was probable cause to believe that certain books, papers, and other items used for the purpose of a lottery were in the possession of Henderson Newman at or near 721 West Mary Street. They forcefully entered the appellant 's home without announcement or purpose. The court held that, the forcible entry without announcement of purpose violates the Fourth Amendment. The fruits of an illegal search are inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio,

Read More
933 Words | 4 Pages

A warrantless search is only reasonable if it is within the specified exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of a warrant. The specific exception covers the applicability of warrantless search conducted incident to a lawful arrest. In this case, such a warrant is only justified by officers’ safety interests or while seeking to prevent potential evidence destruction. Data on a suspect’s cell phone cannot physically harm an officer.

Read More
325 Words | 2 Pages

Facts: Law enforcement gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause that Payton murdered a gas station employee. Without an arrest warrant, agents entered the suspect’s home with force to make an arrest. Payton was not home at the time of the entry but in plain view officers found a shell casing that was used for evidence. Issue: Is it unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Clause for law enforcement to enter a home without an arrest warrant or search warrant

Read More
350 Words | 2 Pages

The search warrant provided Edgartown Police Department permission to search the home for the following: “Illegal Narcotics, Specifically prescription pills Class C, Class E and Marijuana,

Read More
829 Words | 4 Pages

United States v. Mark James Knights, 219 F. 3d 1138 Issue: The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents Fourth Amendment rights were infringed upon when law enforcement searched his home without a warrant. Even though respondent agreed to the terms of probation following release, which included searches of his person or premises with or without a warrant (The United States Department of Justice, 2014). Rule: The rule of law in regards to Knights probation conditions following release state that Knights would “submit his person, property, residence, vehicle, personal effects, to be searched at any time, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer” (Karagiozis et al., 2005 p. 223).

Read More
1429 Words | 6 Pages

The validity of the search could cause a problem with the evidence. I would assume that the search was legal and that the defendant would agree to this

Read More
176 Words | 1 Pages

Delayed-notice warrants have been in existence for decades. The only change is that Congress recognized with the enactment of the Act that these warrants were a vital aspect of the Justice Department’s strategy of prevention when it came to detecting and incapacitating terrorists, drug dealer and other criminals, and further clarified the uniform standard for its application . Also known as “sneak and peak” warrants, they differ from ordinary warrants only in that a judge must specifically authorize law enforcement officers executing the warrant to wait for a “reasonable period” of time before notifying the suspect that the warrant has been executed . Any further delays are not allowed without further court authorization. A court may allow

Read More
1261 Words | 6 Pages

With that being said, under Section 213 of the Patriot Act, Rule 41 authorizes a search warrant without the immediate notification given directly to the person that the search is performed on. This authority for the delaying notice of the execution of a warrant, is known as a “sneak and peek” (Doyle, 2001) warrant. The delaying of a warrant rest on the notion that a court finds the situation to be a matter of “physical safety to an individual or group, use of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, destruction of or tampering with evidence; intimidation of potential witnesses; or otherwise seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial as the kinds of adverse consequences that justify delay” (Sec. 2705, Doyle. 2001).

Read More
216 Words | 1 Pages

The founders of the Constitution knew that it is important to protect citizens from violation of their privacy, especially to the respect of invasion of their homes. Therefore the fourth amendment came into existence to ensure that individuals rights will not be infringed. The fourth amendment and the exclusionary rule has protected individual rights against the police and other government agencies from, unreasonable search and seizures. Furthermore, the exclusionary rule has deterred police misconduct and as well as intended to discourage law enforcement from conducting illegal searches by stating that any evidence found during an illegal search will be dismissed and cannot be used against the defendant in a court of law. The supreme court case, Fremont weeks vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that since the evidence gathered during weeks case were through illegal means the court dismissed the case.

Read More
493 Words | 2 Pages

Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court trusted that the Constitution charged the exclusionary rule as a remaking of a Fourth Amendment infringement. They saw the truths of the sample, the exclusionary rule which was the assurance of somebody 's protection furthermore required by the Due Process which portrayed the Fourteenth Amendment. The rule stated three purposes by the Mapp Court, the right given by the constitution and stated that when police admitted that they were at fault, judges then extended the violations in court. This would stop misconduct for negligence since the case of Mapp the Supreme Court has seized out many exceptions to the exclusionary rule. I would agree with exclusionary rule, searches are easy to get permission from most defendants.

Read More
633 Words | 3 Pages

United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) – The U.S. Supreme Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment." Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) established that after an arrest is made

Read More

More about Chapter 4: Criminal Investigatory Search Warrants

Related Topics

Open Document