Warrantless Search and Seizure Laws

 

Introduction

Under the American constitution, warrantless searches are restricted under the forth amendment. The amendment is meant to protect the privacy of the citizens by stating that

“The right of the people to be secure . . . 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.”

However, a few exceptions that have been developed through case law have been able to authorize the police force to search and seize property without producing warrants. Officers Johnson’s search and subsequent arrest was a warrantless exercise, whether this search was legal under the law or not is what this paper aims to establish.

Vehicular search and seizures

Warrantless searches and seizures on vehicles were made legal in the Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925) case law where the court granted law enforcement personnel substantial liberty when searching automobiles and their contents. However, for this law to apply, probable cause has to be established by the officer. The legality of a warrantless search and seizure is established by satisfying some conditions set out in case law. These conditions include-

• Did the officer seize the defendant?
• Did the officer have grounds for the seizure?
• Did the officer act within the scope of the seizure?
• Did the officer have grounds to arrest or search?
• Did the officer act within the scope of the arrest or search?

All these questions have to be answered successful for an officer’s evidence to be admissible before a court of law.

Seizure of the defendant

The courts in the United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) and Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) established the free-to-leave test. The court established that generally a person is seized when, in view of all of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was not “free to leave.” A seizure clearly occurs if an officer takes a person into custody, physically restrains the person, or otherwise requires the person to submit to the officer’s authority. In our case, Officer Johnson handcuffed the Elliot Watson and placed him in the rear seat of the patrol car. This is a clear physical restrain by the officer. Furthermore, he has approached the suspects’ vehicle with his weapon raised when he noted that the suspect had gotten out of the car and was approaching him. This ensures that that encounter was not consensual but rather a seizure.

Grounds for the seizure

There are a number of factors that constitute grounds in which the suspect was arrested by the officer on that particular day.

Officer Johnson had just received a tip over the police scanner of a crime that had occurred that involved a foreign sports car. He spotted the defendants sports car and since this kind of car was very rear in that community, it can be argued that he had to check the car to be sure. The full details of the car had also not been clearly stated over the police scanner so this evidence would not be admissible in court as was the case in McSwain v. State, 522 U.S 553 (1999).

The officer had pulled up behind the defendants’ car at a traffic stop and had realized that the car stuttered and stalled as it pulled away. He concluded that the car either, had a mechanical problem or the driver was impaired, so he performed a car stop. An officer is allowed by the law to perfume a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Scope of the seizure

According to Terry v. Ohio and State v. Pearson, 348 U.S 272 (1998) cases, an officer is not allowed to frisk an individual unless they have reasonable suspicion that that person has a weapon and presents a danger to the officer or others. The officer frisked the defendant when he saw him approaching the police vehicle in which he was in. the defendant did show any signs of aggression towards the officer. The officer was only unsettled because the suspect had seemed nervous. The courts, in United States v. Burton, 228 U.S 524 (2000) have states that, an officer is prohibited from frisking an individual merely because he or she fears for their lives. Upon frisking the defendant, the officer found what seems to be a pot-pipe. This evidence would however not be admissible in court because the officer was to look for a weapon not contraband, in the frisk.

Under the law once the purpose for a Terry stop has been established, the detention has to immediately stop. In this case, the officer had stopped the defendant to establish if the defendant was driving under the influence. Upon establishing that this was not the case, the officer should have let him go. In United States v. Beck, 140 U.S 1129 (1998), the court established that once purpose of traffic stop completed, officer must have reasonable suspicion to continue to detain defendant. However the same law states that the evidence that is to be searched is in respect to the crime one is detained for.

Grounds to arrest or search

Although reasonable suspicion may be sufficient to support an officer’s initial stop and investigative actions, an officer must have probable cause to make an arrest or to search for evidence during a stop (State v. Wise, 449 U.S 774 (1994) . Officer Johnson had no probable cause to search the defendants’ vehicle without a warrant because, it had already been established that the he was not intoxicated. The officer had also deemed fit to ignore the fact that he had encountered drug paraphernalia on the defendant. The officer did not seek the consent of the defendant to go through his car trunk. The defendant was adamant in refusing the officers inspection of his trunk.

Acting within the scope of the search

Under the law, searches that result to arrests are only permissible if among other reasons the suspect was going to trying to escape, reach for a weapon or trying to hide incriminating evidence against him (State v. Hardaway, 36 U.S 900 (2001). However, the law only permits the search of the drivers and passengers’ side of the vehicle where the driver is most likely to destroy evidence incidental to their arrest (New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, (1981).

Conclusion

In conclusion, although the officer made an arrest, the arrest was unlawful under the warrantless search and seizure law. This is because no probable cause was sufficiently established by the officer to make the seizure. Furthermore, the arrest was not based on the reason for the stop; therefore, any search conducted by the officer needed a search warrant. The defendant had gotten out of his vehicle and walked towards the officer, this did not warrant him pulling out his weapon.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Case law

Statutes

The American Constitution

Books

LaFave, W. R. (1987). Search and seizure: A treatise on the Fourth Amendment. St. Paul, Minn:   West Pub. Co.

Farb, R. L., & University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (2003). Arrest, search, and nvestigation in North Carolina. Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Farb, R. L., & University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (2010). Arrest warrant and indictment forms. Chapel Hill, N.C.: UNC School of Government.

Farb, R. L. (2004). North Carolina capital case law handbook. Chapel Hill: UNC, School of Government.