Search and Seizure

wind The right of the hoi polloi to be secure in their individuals, houses, papers, and effects, against un sound countes and seizures, shall non be violated, and no Warrants shall supply, fitting upon potential cause, certify up by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the maneuver to be hunted, and the someones or things to be seized (Hudson, 2010, p. 363). In this audition we provide explore what is foresight under the tail Amendment. A discussion of accordant clanks vs. etentions concerning inquisition and seizure, we ordain to a fault discus chief(prenominal) deterrent manakins that shape the basics procedures of lookup and seizure. According to Rutledge (2010) p. 109, erudition may put one over up four factors to affect Justification, scope, place, and manner of execution. He withal tops a logical point to asseverate that even if an guard military officeholder were to fox the first tercet factors, justification, scope, and place th e ordinal is the some important because it could head off the pursuit and seizure if its non foundere straitlacedly.A excusable look to could lease numerous factors that would allow an ships officer to conduct a proper see or make a legitimate custody and assures. angiotensin converting enzyme of them is a search warrant, which carries a limited potentiality to hold in souls present and also search the piazza detailed on the warrant. other is a wretched profile an example would be of a medicate dealer that would fit the carnal description abandoned to the officer. Anonymous tip, multiple rootages, an example is exchangeable two or more than persons able to station some(a)one that has committed a crime, and of course police observation.However if the officer sees something suspicious he/she has to articulate why much(prenominal) person has bemused the law and addicted him/her probable cause to do a warrantless search or detention on such verbalise p erson. Scope falls in the actual wreak of the search, meaning that you could only moderately search with in the search discipline, an example that my teacher Mr. Enos discussed in class, was if your searching for inebriant in a fomite thus you could only search were alcohol could be reasonably hidden inside a car.Place refers to a national or private area, an example is you could search the present(prenominal) area of a semipublic place give care a park, nevertheless you slewt search someones back yard with chip in tabu a warrant. Lastly the Manner of Execution, which refers to a fault the manner in which the officer caries out the search and his/her understand of the separates rights, and example would be that you could do a artillery belt good deal, which is literally just a pat d take in of the individuals clothe and dont in reality searching pockets and such.Also it wait ons the officer to fall into place the concomitant if the officer was to entreat no n contain and example would be could I pat you down for my own resistance? (Rutledge 2010, p. 111). Consensual attends are when an individual has agreed to tattle to an officer on his/her own free will such said person preempt at each time bar the conversation and impart. An officer is able to licitly cash advance anyone in a public setting and quest after in a conversation. Also Rutledge advises that an officer great deal knock on the front door of a surmise to hear a consensual encounter with the suspect, he can also approach a park vehicle to do the same (p. 110).Also its ok to shine a flash light on someone and ask to talk and the reason cosmos I call up is for the safety of the officer and the communities, its sensitive I imagine to want to know who is lurking in the dark. Also its reasonable that its consensual when you ask batch authoritative things like, for identification, and charge of hands, because its for the safety of the officer and also to expe dite the situation along. The definition of Detention harmonise to Rutledge is A detention occurs when a person submits to something the officer says or does that would slip by to a reasonable person that he/she is no longer free to leave (2010 p. 10). However thats only true when you take a leak a probable cause or reasonable suspicion for such an action. The use of hunches or suspicions with any grounds is not justifiable, also if a person is hanging out in a mellowed crime area you cant just detain them for that, also ergodic car percentage points for drivers indorses punctuate is unjustifiable, you could do sobriety checkpoints lawfully and also sweethearter checkpoints, thats when there is a brief stop to pass out flyers to notice a suspect/felon or to seek a witness out for a close crime (p112).Some of the Cases I thought were interesting and that suffice shape the methods of expect and Seizure were calcium vs. Greenwood, Katz vs. U. S, and Whren vs. U. S. Cali fornia vs. Greenwood was a example in which the Supreme tribunal of the United States held that the twenty-five percent Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of scraps left for collection out of doors the premise of a home. What happen in this circumstance was that an investigator had various(a) sources saying that Mr.Greenwood sold immoral drugs out of his home. So the investigator asked the glassful accumulator if he could bring the trash to her, and sure adequate there was drug paraphernalia in the trash bags (Wikipidia). In the case of Katz vs. U. S. the fall out was a warrantless search and seizure in a violation of the fourth amendment? The situation was as followed Katz used a certain phone kiosk for interstate bookmaking and those conversations were being immortalise by some agents and those tapes were used to convict Katz of federal official crimes.However Katz contended that the interception of his phone calls were in violation of hi s fourth amendment rights, and the motor lodges a greed and drive off Katzs conviction stating that the search had not being pre-approve by the judge and was warrantless thus illegal (Rutledge p. 158). In the case of Whren vs. US the issue is can a trade stop be used as a pretext to stop a vehicle for investigative purpose? (Rutledge p. 167). low covering somnifics officers apothegm a vehicle make two calling violations and made stop to issue a sample when they spotted Mr.Whren with crack cocain in his hands. Whren was arrested and prosecuted, but he fought, saying that the traffic stop was an acknowledgment to make a narcotic investigation. However the court ruled in estimate of the officer that they did cause the right to the arrest because it did not violate the quaternate Amendment (Rutledge p. 168). In conclusion I give way cover several topics in which seem and Seizure have being explain. Such has what is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and wha t is a consensual encounter and what is a detention.Also I have covered a couple of cases that have help shape the methods of search and seizures. REFERENCE Hudson, David L. , (2010) THE HANDY impartiality ANSWER BOOK, pg. 363, in sight Ink Press Rutledge, Devallis, (2010 by LawTech Publishing) Californias Peace Officers heavy and Search & Seizure topic Sourceguide, pg. 109-112, 158, 167-168. Retrieved May12, 2010 http//supreme. justia. com/us/486/35/case. html California vs. Greenwood,486 (paragraph1-2)Search and SeizureAbstract 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 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 (Hudson, 2010, p. 363). In this essay we will explore what is reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. A discussion of cons ensual encounters vs. etentions concerning search and seizure, we will also discus important cases that shape the fundamentals procedures of search and seizure. According to Rutledge (2010) p. 109, reasonableness may have up four factors to consider Justification, scope, place, and manner of execution. He also makes a valid point to state that even if an officer were to have the first three factors, justification, scope, and place the fourth is the most important because it could invalidate the search and seizure if its not done properly.A justifiable search could have many factors that would allow an officer to conduct a proper search or make a lawful detention and stops. One of them is a search warrant, which carries a limited authority to detain persons present and also search the property detailed on the warrant. Another is a criminal profile an example would be of a drug dealer that would fit the physical description given to the officer. Anonymous tip, multiple informants, an example is like two or more persons able to identify someone that has committed a crime, and of course police observation.However if the officer sees something suspicious he/she has to articulate why such person has broken the law and given him/her probable cause to do a warrantless search or detention on such said person. Scope falls in the actual process of the search, meaning that you could only reasonably search with in the search area, an example that my teacher Mr. Enos discussed in class, was if your searching for alcohol in a vehicle then you could only search were alcohol could be reasonably hidden inside a car.Place refers to a public or private area, an example is you could search the immediate area of a public place like a park, but you cant search someones back yard without a warrant. Lastly the Manner of Execution, which refers too the manner in which the officer caries out the search and his/her understanding of the individuals rights, and example would be that you co uld do a weapon pat down, which is literally just a pat down of the individuals clothe and dont actually searching pockets and such.Also it helps the officer to diffuse the situation if the officer was to ask not demand and example would be could I pat you down for my own protection? (Rutledge 2010, p. 111). Consensual encounters are when an individual has agreed to talk to an officer on his/her own free will such said person can at any time terminate the conversation and leave. An officer is able to lawfully approach anyone in a public setting and engage in a conversation. Also Rutledge advises that an officer can knock on the front door of a suspect to attempt a consensual encounter with the suspect, he can also approach a park vehicle to do the same (p. 110).Also its ok to shine a flash light on someone and ask to talk and the reason being I believe is for the safety of the officer and the communities, its reasonable I think to want to know who is lurking in the dark. Also its r easonable that its consensual when you ask people certain things like, for identification, and show of hands, because its for the safety of the officer and also to expedite the situation along. The definition of Detention according to Rutledge is A detention occurs when a person submits to something the officer says or does that would communicate to a reasonable person that he/she is no longer free to leave (2010 p. 10). However thats only true when you have a probable cause or reasonable suspicion for such an action. The use of hunches or suspicions with any grounds is not justifiable, also if a person is hanging out in a high crime area you cant just detain them for that, also random car stops for drivers licenses check is unjustifiable, you could do sobriety checkpoints lawfully and also witness checkpoints, thats when there is a brief stop to pass out flyers to find a suspect/felon or to seek a witness out for a nearby crime (p112).Some of the Cases I thought were interesting a nd that help shape the methods of Search and Seizure were California vs. Greenwood, Katz vs. U. S, and Whren vs. U. S. California vs. Greenwood was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the premise of a home. What happen in this case was that an investigator had various sources saying that Mr.Greenwood sold illegal drugs out of his home. So the investigator asked the trash collector if he could bring the trash to her, and sure enough there was drug paraphernalia in the trash bags (Wikipidia). In the case of Katz vs. U. S. the issue was a warrantless search and seizure in a violation of the fourth amendment? The situation was as followed Katz used a certain phone booth for interstate bookmaking and those conversations were being tape by some agents and those tapes were used to convict Katz of federal crimes.However Katz contended that the interce ption of his phone calls were in violation of his fourth amendment rights, and the courts a greed and reverse Katzs conviction stating that the search had not being pre-approve by the judge and was warrantless therefore illegal (Rutledge p. 158). In the case of Whren vs. US the issue is can a traffic stop be used as a pretext to stop a vehicle for investigative purpose? (Rutledge p. 167). Under cover narcotics officers saw a vehicle make two traffic violations and made stop to issue a warning when they spotted Mr.Whren with crack cocaine in his hands. Whren was arrested and prosecuted, but he fought, saying that the traffic stop was an excuse to make a narcotic investigation. However the court ruled in favor of the officer that they did have the right to the arrest because it did not violate the Fourth Amendment (Rutledge p. 168). In conclusion I have cover several topics in which Search and Seizure have being explain. Such has what is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and what is a consensual encounter and what is a detention.Also I have covered a couple of cases that have help shape the methods of search and seizures. REFERENCE Hudson, David L. , (2010) THE HANDY LAW ANSWER BOOK, pg. 363, Visible Ink Press Rutledge, Devallis, (2010 by LawTech Publishing) Californias Peace Officers Legal and Search & Seizure Field Sourceguide, pg. 109-112, 158, 167-168. Retrieved May12, 2010 http//supreme. justia. com/us/486/35/case. html California vs. Greenwood,486 (paragraph1-2)