Searches and Seizures, the Fourth Amendment - Essay Example

? 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