StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Searches and Seizures, the Fourth Amendment - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
The paper "Searches and Seizures, the Fourth Amendment" discusses that the case against William for the murder of Stevens does not hold water as evidence against him violates his Fourth Amendment rights which makes it fall under the exclusionary rule…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER95.5% of users find it useful
Searches and Seizures, the Fourth Amendment
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Searches and Seizures, the Fourth Amendment"

? Searches and Seizures Introduction Our system of law has firmly ingrained that searches that are conducted outside the judicial process and without any prior approval by a magistrate or judge are per se unreasonable (not permissible) under the Fourth Amendment though this is subject to only few established exceptions. The court has given a number of exceptions to warrant that is required including but not limited to searches of vehicles, consent searches and inventory searches. The Fourth Amendment of the US constitution provides for the right of the people to be secure in their houses, persons, effects and papers against any unreasonable seizures and searches. A search usually occurs when an expectation of privacy that is considered by the society as reasonable is infringed by a government employee. A seizure is the interference of the possessory interest in property of a person. The Fourth Amendment protects a person against any search and seizure which that violates their reasonable expectation of privacy (LaFave, 2004). A reasonable expectation of privacy exists if one expects privacy and if the expectation is thought to be legitimate by the entire society. The Fourth Amendment Mary Ellis was awakened on Saturday morning and finds her neighbor Mr. Clyde Stevens lying unresponsive on the floor. She calls 911 and the police and EMS personnel arrived minutes later and Mr. Stevens is pronounced dead from a large butcher knife in his back. Crime scene investigators then started investigating William’s bedroom as the crime scene without any search warrant. The investigations started shortly after the arrival of the police officers. The investigators took charge of the investigation and conducted an exhaustive warrantless search on the Mary Ellis apartment which included development of blood fingerprint, photographing the print and recovery of a blood sample of William for a DNA analysis. The Fourth Amendment prohibits any government official from searching a home without any warrant which must include specific information like the name and address of the person. The Fourth Amendment requires all searches and seizures to be reasonable. If the search and seizure are declared unreasonable, then the police cannot use the evidence obtained from the search and seizure in criminal trials. Warrants are issues under a probable cause which should be supported by Oath or Affirmation which describes the place to be searched and the persons and things that need to be seized (Chamelin, 2003). A judge can only find a probable cause though the examination of the totality of all the circumstances presented. However, the police can enter a private residence without a warrant if an officer enters a building or a place of residence to assist in any form of emergency if the officer receives consent to search the residence without a warrant, if an officer has placed the person under arrest and if the search is administrative in nature which is done for the purposes of law reinforcement. The police can also enter a private residence without a warrant if they suspect that the house harbors a person carrying or in control of firearms illegally and are not in proper control of the arm and may injure or kill a person as a result of their mental condition (LaFave, 2004). They also enter a private residence without a warrant if they have a reasonable ground to suspect a firearm offence if the house contains illegal drugs and if someone in the house is at large after escaping from prison. The legal rights of the police to access the Ellis household The search done on Ellis household is not constitutionally permissible. The police did not have any warrant to carry out searches on Eliss household whether in Mary’s bedroom or Williams’s bed. A ‘murder scene’ is an expectation that requires a warrant as a requirement of the Fourth Amendment. In the case of Mincey v. Arizona Case, the search on Mincey’s residence was found no to be constitutionally permissible as the police had conducted the search and seizure without any warrant (Chamelin, 2003). The fact that this was a homicide does not warrant the police and criminal investigators to conduct a search on Ellis apartments without any search warrant and this are in accordance with the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution. The police do not have the power to enter into any private premise without consent or a search warrant. The warrantless search invaded the privacy of William and Mary which contravenes the Fourth Amendment. This amendment provides to the right of people to be secure in their persons and houses against any unreasonable searches and seizures (LaFave, 2004). Due process in the collection of the evidence was also not followed. The access into the household of Mary Ellis is regarded as an arbitrary invasion of her rights as provided in the Fourth Amendment. Mary has the right to sue the police over a violation of the Fourth Amendments. Questions arise if the police had obtained a warrant before they began investigating, exploring, and gathering evidence and whether they were allowed to enter William’s bedroom through his consent. Exclusionary rule and the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine is a branch of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that all evidence that is obtained from any illegal arrest, coercive interrogation or unreasonable search be fully excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this evidence should be excluded from trial if it was obtained through unreasonable search, illegal arrest and coercive interrogation (Gardner and Anderson, 2009). The exclusionary rule is based on the case of Weeks v US (1914) where the judge agreed together with the attorney who represented the client, Weeks that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violates as the investigators did not have any warrant to obtain the evidences required for his trial. The fruit of the poisonous tree is also evident in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S (1918) where the judge agreed with the defense that the Fifth Amendment rights of the client were violated as a result of the due process which meant that the evidence was illegally obtained and could not be used in the client’s trial (Gardner and Anderson, 2009). The exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree were established in order to deter law enforcement from any violation of rights against searches and seizures. The poisonous tree, as well as the tree is excluded from any criminal trial (LaFave, 2004). The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ and the exclusionary rule apply in the case of Mary Ellis as search and the process of obtaining the evidence against the murder of Stevens was illegally obtained which violated the Fourth Amendment rights of both Mary and her son, William. In this case, the bloody fingerprint obtained from William cannot be used in William’s trial nor could the knowledge of the fact that a bloody fingerprint was obtained from William be used in the trial against him under the exclusionary rule because if it was obtained illegally, it will forever remain illegal. There are therefore, high chances that the case against William will not go past the Grand Jury even if William gets arrested. Steps that should have been taken to perform the investigation It is important to ensure all the individual/personal rights are protected before carrying out any investigation as this is provided for under the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution. Things and procedures should have been carried with more care and precaution than it has been presented in this case (Chamelin, 2003). Collection of any evidence should follow the due process and ensure the protection of the rights of individuals. This investigation was very important and should therefore, have been conducted in a professional manner. To carry out this investigation, the police officers should have obtained a search warrant or obtain a consent to conduct the search without a warrant which would also make the evidence collected to be useful for the trail of the accused (LaFave, 2004). Due process must also have been followed in containment of the boundary of the scene, protection of evidence, photography and diagram of the crime scene and access control to the crime scene in order to make sure the evidence obtained is legal and could be used in the trial. Conclusion In conclusion, the case against William for the murder of Stevens does not hold water as evidence against him violates his Fourth Amendment rights which makes it fall under the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree, making it illegal. That is the search and seizure carried out in this case in unreasonable and illegal and cannot be used by the police for any criminal trial. The rule of law requires a given form of due process that is reasonably designed in order to ascertain the truth in ways which are consistent with the legal system and determine if there any cased of violation. References Chamelin N.C, (2003). Criminal law for police officers (8th ed). Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey The Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment Mincey v. Arizona (1978). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0437_0385_ZS.html Johnson H.A and Wolfe N.T, (2003). History of Criminal justice (3rd Ed). Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co. LaFave W.R, (2004). Search and seizure: a treatise on the Fourth Amendment, Volume 5. Thomson/West Gardner T.J and Anderson T.M, (2009). Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases: Principles and Cases. Cengage Learning Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Searches and Seizures Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words”, n.d.)
Searches and Seizures Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1496847-searches-and-seizures
(Searches and Seizures Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words)
Searches and Seizures Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words. https://studentshare.org/law/1496847-searches-and-seizures.
“Searches and Seizures Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1496847-searches-and-seizures.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Searches and Seizures, the Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment: Searchers and Seizures

Fourth Amendment: Searchers and Seizures Professor the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution protects the privacy interest of citizens from unlawful governmental intrusion or unreasonable search and seize by the government.... This is accomplished by barring any evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment's protection from use at trial.... the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution states, The right of the people to 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....
21 Pages (5250 words) Research Paper

The Fourth Amendment / Search and Seziure

the fourth amendment/ Search and Seizure the fourth amendment Introduction the fourth amendment to the Constitution of United States involves the section of the Bill of Rights that protects the citizens from unfair searches and seizures.... the fourth amendment clearly states that, “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 Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized” (cited in Hess, 2009, p....
4 Pages (1000 words) Research Paper

The United States vs Jones

The argument by Jones seems realistic since indeed the FBI violated his right in respect to the legal law on the fourth amendment (Totenberg).... According to the fourth amendment, liberties that are liberty to privacy and liberty to privacy from arbitrary invasion are protected.... the fourth amendment outlaws indiscriminate searches, except unusual situations place the community in danger.... Dreeben on behalf of the petitioner, in the utilization of GPS and wiretaps in thecae of Jones, it is a violation of the fourth amendment while in the case of Knotts, the fourth amendment was not infringed because the police used visual and beeper to survey him....
3 Pages (750 words) Research Paper

How has the exclusionary rule affected policing

This rule is biased as it applies to proof got fro and irrational search or seizure in violation of the fourth amendment (Clancy, 2008).... the fourth amendment prohibits or denounces searches and seizures as unreasonable in a manner in which will conserve individual rights and public interests.... In addition, the Supreme Court states that under the fourth amendment to the constitution, police officers should get search warrants to carry out searches and seizures unless their actions fall within a few specifically and well-drawn exceptions....
5 Pages (1250 words) Research Paper

Criminal Procedure and the Police

The issue is that the people officers were called to respond to an accident and not an investigation into Fred's life.... Did the circumstances and facts provide the police officers a probable or credible cause to consider that Fred had or was going to commit a felony?... .... ... ... Can probable cause rely on tips?...
6 Pages (1500 words) Assignment

Procedural Posture of Chimel versus California

In this case, three-law enforcement officers arrived at the home of Santa Anna in California equipped with an arrest warrant but lacked a search and seizure warrant.... They asked petitioner's wife if they enter the house and she allowed them in as they waited for the arrival of.... ... ... The police office had an arrest warrant to arrest the petitioner for robbery of a coin ship....
5 Pages (1250 words) Book Report/Review

Criminal Law and Procedure

A paralegal must be qualified by education, training or work experience to work as such and perform the duties expected of such a profession.... In cases where the lawyer is not present, it is the duty of.... ... ... In a law firm, there is no limit as to what a paralegal cannot do.... The lawyer draws the line in terms of the extent that a legal Due to this reason, it becomes paramount for a paralegal working in a criminal law firm to be versed in various legal doctrines associated with criminal law....
8 Pages (2000 words) Coursework

Search and Seizures Under the Fourth Amendment of the US

The paper "Search and Seizures Under the fourth amendment of the US" states that the fourth amendment was inserted into the Constitution so that no citizen would be subject to unreasonable searches of their person, property or papers without showing cause that a crime was being committed.... Throughout the history of the country, at least until relatively recently, the courts interpreted the fourth amendment much as the Founders intended.... 155) The past generation though has witnessed an erosion of the liberties found within the fourth amendment as well as other aspects of the Constitution....
7 Pages (1750 words) Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us