ipl-logo

Essay On Search Incident

633 Words3 Pages

Search incident to arrest is permitting searches of the person and surrounding area of an arrestee as an incident to the arrest. There has been many case laws installed to protect the rights of civilians but also to allow police to do their job in taking illegal items off the streets with the arrestee. Search incident to arrest is a simple rule that opens the door for police in many ways. It’s a great tool to have but there is a strict set of rules and exceptions. The following information lists the cases that have shaped search incident to arrest to what it is today.
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 …show more content…

During search incident to arrest one of these requirements must be present in order to search a vehicle if you make an arrest: 1) The defendant is within reach of the vehicle or 2) Evidence directly related to the arrested offense may be found in the car. These requirements are known as the Gant Requirements from the U.S. Supreme Court Case Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).
Search incident to arrest is also known as The Chimel Rule. In 1969 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The decision was 7-2 in favor of Chimel stating that it was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments that the entire house was searched after the arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that it is reasonable to search the arrestee and the area that would allow the arrestee to gain access to a weapon or destroy evidence, but not areas where the arrestee could not reasonably obtain weapons or destroy

Show More
Related
407 Words | 2 Pages

Title: Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Date/Court: The United States Supreme Court, 1973 Facts: This case deals with Clyde Bustamonte, who tried to defraud a check. At 2:40 a.m. local Sunnyvale Police Officer James Rand stopped a vehicle that had a burnt out headlight and license plate light. When Officer Rand approached the vehicle he found that the individuals Joe Alcala, Bustamonte, and Joe Gonzales were in the front seat. In the rear of the vehicle Officer Rand saw three older gentlemen, Officer Rand then asked the driver if he had identification and the driver (Gonzales) did not have any. Rand then asked the other individuals in the car and only Alcala had a valid license, after producing his license Alcala told the officer that the car was his brothers.

Read More
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

Now although the office filled the warrant out he didn’t specify which unit in a multi-family housing unit was supposed to be search. Unfortunately, the police raided the wrong house or residence, which in returned caused them to kick down the door as well as terrorize an innocent family. Therefore, an innocent person could have gotten killed which has happened before in New York. However, the requirement that the location of a search warrant be specific isn’t “a technicality” but a core principle of the Fourth Amendment (washingtonpost.com. n.d.). Therefore, the reason that the Fourth Amendment was created goes back to the general warrants that the British crown issued to English

Read More
1331 Words | 6 Pages

Given the totality of circumstances, an officer has satisfied the probable cause standard to arrest an individual believing that a felony is or has occurred in the officer’s presents. This type of warrantless arrest does not violate an individual’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Decision: Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the Court’s opinion on this case. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that citizens “are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” This right is pushed down to the state level by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ensures that warrantless arrests can be conducted by police officers when the standard of probable cause has been met.

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
475 Words | 2 Pages

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Read More
1400 Words | 6 Pages

It specifically states that a person is protected in their home or possessions from unreasonable seizures and searches by officers. It adds that a warrant may not be issued without credible cause defended by oath or

Read More
579 Words | 3 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

Read More
939 Words | 4 Pages

It goes against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated but only upon probable cause. Skagen didn’t have probably cause to even have the right to search and try to seize whatever Richardson had. Skagen was considered off duty and felt that Richardson was hiding something. The evidence that was found in the court was nothing associated with the four criteria’s.

Read More
292 Words | 2 Pages

This is an emergency because the woman was being beaten by her husband and could not defend herself. Officers also do not need to obtain a warrant under exigent circumstances. These circumstances include when a suspect is in hot pursuit, suspect is fleeing, imminent destruction of evidence, or the lives of officer or other people are in danger. In this case, the life of a person was in danger, which was the emergency that allowed the officers to enter into the house under the exceptions. When the officers arrived at the house/crime scene, they knocked and announced their presence.

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.

Read More
469 Words | 2 Pages

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.

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
796 Words | 4 Pages

Talks about is the stop-and-frisk legal in the United States and they have the fourth amendment on this situation. Terry v Ohio case resulted in the stop-and-frisk issue. HISTORY: Stop-and-frisk also known as “stop-and-search, began in the 1950’s. It gave police the legal right to search someone warrantless, if it had something to do with the law.

Read More

More about Essay On Search Incident

Related Topics

Open Document