The University of Adelaide, School of Computer Science Criminal Justice Procedure 8th Edition The University of Adelaide, School of Computer Science 14 May 2018 Chapter 4 Searches: General Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 2 — Instructions: Language of the Computer

The University of Adelaide, School of Computer Science 14 May 2018 Introduction Chapter 4, Searches The Fourth Amendment includes both searches and seizures of both persons and things. A search is defined as the exploration or examination of an individual’s house, premises, or person, to discover things or items that may be used by the government for evidence in a criminal prosecution. Protections of privacy can apply anywhere, even in a public place. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 2 — Instructions: Language of the Computer

The Search Warrant Requirement Chapter 4, Searches To comply with the 4th Amendment protections, searches must be accompanied by a search warrant except for limited exceptions. For a search warrant to be issued, it must meet four criteria. the search must be based on probable cause. it must be supported by an oath or affirmation. it must be signed by a neutral and detached magistrate. it must particularly describe the place to be searched and the thing to be seized. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

Coolidge v. New Hampshire Chapter 4, Searches The Coolidge case is best known for the principle that a warrant is valid only if issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. If the person issuing the warrant has any interest in the outcome of the case (such as the State Attorney General who was also the state’s chief investigator and prosecutor in the case), the warrant is invalid. In addition to the neutrality requirement, the magistrate must be able to make an independent determination of probable cause and not be a rubber stamp for police officer’s assertions that probable cause exists. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

Particularity Requirement Chapter 4, Searches The Fourth amendment also contains a particularity requirement stating that warrants must “particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In addition to describing the things to be seized, a warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched. The general rule regarding the requirements for a particular description of a place to be searched is that it “is enough if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended.” Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Rochin v. California Chapter 4, Searches This case is significant because it indicates further limits on the ability of law enforcement to extract evidence from an individual under the due process clause. Thus, even if officers have probable cause to conduct a search, that search must be conducted within the boundaries of due process of law. Based on Rochin police officer must act reasonably in extracting evidence of a crime. They cannot demand intrusive actions that are so contrary to societal concepts of fairness that they violate our concepts of due process. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Wilson v. Arkansas This case holds that, absent exigent circumstances, officers are required to “knock and announce” to meet the reasonableness requirements of the 4th Amendment. Anytime officers enter into the home of a suspect, they are required to announce their presence in advance unless they can articulate exigent circumstances. Whether an unannounced entry is reasonable is left to the discretion of lower courts. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Richards v. Wisconsin This case clarifies an issue that was not clearly addressed in the case of Wilson v. Arkansas. The 4th Amendment does not allow a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement in felony drug investigations. The fact that felony drug investigations may frequently involve threats of physical violence or destruction of evidence does not automatically exempt it. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

Steagald v. United States Having an arrest warrant does not authorize the police to enter a third person’s home without a search warrant. This rule, however, is subject to two exceptions: “exigent circumstances” and consent of the third person. Exigent circumstances means that the police do not have to obtain a search warrant if circumstances are such that to obtain one would jeopardize the arrest. Consent of the third person makes the warrantless search valid as long as the consent is intelligent and voluntary given. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Conclusion Two very basic rules govern searches generally: No fishing expeditions are allowed Do not look for an elephant in a breadbox Warrants must be particular as to both the place to be searched and the person or item to be seized. Even with probable cause or a search warrant, the manner in which the search is conducted must be reasonable and comply with due process. Warrants must be executed in the day and officers must announce their presence unless some exigent circumstances exist to eliminate that requirement. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved