M OBILE D OCTRINE ( CONTINUED ) A mobile home is not considered a vehicle when it is hooked up to utilities. 44
E XIGENT C IRCUMSTANCES Specific situations where the court has ruled that the need of the government to immediately provide for the safety and the welfare of the citizens over- rides the people's right to privacy, and a warrant is not first needed before searching. 45
E XIGENT C IRCUMSTANCES ( CONTINUED ) What are some examples of exigent circumstances? 46
E XIGENT C IRCUMSTANCES ( CONTINUED ) 1) Emergency Circumstances -An unconscious person -An incoherent person -A medical aid situation -Shots fired -Fight noises or screams -Fires, explosions, or natural disasters etc. 47
E XIGENT C IRCUMSTANCES ( CONTINUED ) -The police do not have to speculate if the report is correct -The searching and seizing are confined to emergency activities, are warranted, and searching must cease once the emergency ends -A warrant is required for more searching after the emergency is over 48
E XIGENT C IRCUMSTANCES ( CONTINUED ) 2) Hot Pursuit -In lawful fresh pursuit of a fleeing felon and a warrantless entry is made into any place -No more than a 30-minute interruption in the pursuit 49
E XIGENT C IRCUMSTANCES ( CONTINUED ) 3) Imminent Destruction -Entry into a house without a warrant to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence or contraband 50
E XIGENT C IRCUMSTANCES ( CONTINUED ) Other exigent circumstances -Securing a premise on alarm calls -Securing a crime scene for safety 51
E XCLUSIONARY R ULE Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Evidence obtained after an illegal government action will be excluded from evidence. This pertains to 1) Physical or tangible evidence 2) Confessions 3) Admissions 4) Identification 5) Testimony 52
E XCLUSIONARY R ULE C ASES ( CONTINUED ) Escobedo v. Illinois – A defendant has the right to a lawyer during police interrogation when in custody. This was determined to be a 6 th amendment issue but Miranda v. Arizona overruled this case, making it a 5 th amendment issue instead. 53
E XCLUSIONARY R ULE C ASES ( CONTINUED ) Miranda v. Arizona – when a suspect is in custody, he or she has to be advised of the right to a lawyer when talking to the police. Douglas v. California – the indigent must be provided a lawyer if they cannot afford one on their own. 54
E XCLUSIONARY R ULE C ASES ( CONTINUED ) Weeks v. United States – police must have a warrant to seize items from a private residence. Any illegally obtained items are not allowed in federal court as evidence. Mapp v. Ohio – evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment is not allowed in criminal prosecution in federal or state courts. 55
G OOD F AITH If an officer performs an action based on information given to him that he believes is credible, then what he finds is not considered fruit of the poisonous tree. A person giving information is considered credible unless proven otherwise. There are exceptions. 56
R ESOURCES 57 Champion, Dean John, Hartley, Richard D. & Rabe, Gary A. Pearson Criminal Courts: Structure, Process, & Issues. (2nd edition) Prentice Hall, 2008. Del Carmen, Rolando V. Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. (8th edition) Wadsworth, 2010.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.