Strip search of prisoner was reasonable under circumstances. Checking an engine number located inside a vehicle constitutes a "search". Police may conduct warrantless search of lost property to identify and safeguard it, protect police from false claims, or negate danger presented. A police inventory of lost and found property is a search. Use of dog to sniff all packages in cargo room was reasonable in light of balance of interests. Prior suspicion of particular package not absolute prerequisite to use of dog to sniff for drugs.
Warrantless search of probationer's person, property, or residence; when justified. Ordering driver out of car and to take sobriety test was reasonable seizure. Flashlight-aided inspection of vehicle's interior to confirm unaided observation of object in open view, not a search. Circumstances, including anonymous tip, did not warrant search of car. Any co-inhabitant of commonly held property has right to consent to search of property; no expectation of privacy in property abandoned; abandonment primarily a question of intent.
Extraction of cigarettes from purse at defendant's request not a search; if search, consent given; warrantless seizure as valid protective measure incident to lawful arrest. Based on record, no consent to search; legitimate expectation of privacy in area searched; warrantless seizure; exigent circumstances lacking.
Stopping automobile for a brief period during traffic stop is a "seizure". Warrant to install beeper not excused by difficulty in satisfying particularity requirement; sufficient basis for warrant. Reasonable expectation of privacy in closed public toilet stall; no probable cause to search stall. No reasonable expectation of privacy in defendant's yard where defendant made no attempts to screen neighbor's view, construct or maintain a fence.
Per se reasonable for arresting officer to conduct a warrantless, limited pat-down search. Search warrant was valid although informant had no history of reliability because other corroborated information indicated informant was reliable. Constitutional right was not voluntarily waived by defendant's consent to search car where waiver was predicated on prior illegal search and State failed to meet burden of showing that taint of illegal search had been dissipated or that there was an independent source inducing defendant to waive right.
Although no force was used, officers' show of authority and questioning constituted seizure under Hawaii constitution. Traffic stop was justified; police officer was permitted to invite appellant to exit appellant's vehicle for further investigation. High school principal's search of student's purse was lawfully conducted.
Where handgun on floor of defendant's truck under corner of driver's seat was observed in plain view, presence of exigent circumstances was not required to justify a warrantless seizure. Detective's entrance into defendants' home, whatever the purpose, over six hours after everyone had left was a "search" in the constitutional sense.
Clear plastic packets not "closed" containers as contents were within plain view of officer conducting search under warrant; defendant thus could not claim any reasonable expectation of privacy in the packets' contents. Obtaining warrant as precondition to testing suspected cocaine in clear plastic bags unnecessary where defendant could not have reasonable expectation of privacy in clear plastic bags. Valid search incident to lawful arrest where there was probable cause to make an arrest prior to and independent of search of defendant's pants, search was limited to finding narcotics bindles, and arrest was made immediately after search.
As Hawaii constitution provides greater protection for Hawaii's citizens, determination of probable cause for issuance of search warrant warrants de novo review on appeal. Defendant lacked standing to challenge seizure of search warrant evidence where evidence seizure did not violate defendant's personal rights; defendant was not owner of any of items seized and did not allege any reasonable expectation of privacy in items.
No "seizure" where private individual, acting on own initiative, secured videotape and voluntarily transferred possession to police. Drug evidence admissible and wrongly suppressed where police intrusion into hotel room pursuant to valid arrest warrant was justified and evidence seizure was permissible under plain view doctrine. Warrantless seizure justified where witness' identification of defendant as person who terrorized witness with gun gave officers probable cause to believe defendant committed a crime and officer's observation of defendant sleeping with gun in immediate reach presented sufficient exigent circumstances for officer to board boat and seize gun.
Officer lacked specific and articulable facts sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing that defendant was engaged in criminal activity; officer was thus unjustified in initiating investigative "encounter" at airport with defendant. Where nothing in objective facts available to police at time they obtained search warrant for house suggested defendant's bedroom was separate residential unit completely secured against access by other dwelling occupants, search warrant not overbroad and search of bedroom reasonable.
Police may not prolong the detention of individuals subjected to brief, temporary investigative stops, once such stops have failed to substantiate the reasonable suspicion that initially justified them, solely for the purpose of performing a check for outstanding warrants. Officer's warrantless seizure of pouch containing handgun was justified based on exigent circumstances where, based on totality of the circumstances, including dark and deserted nature of area of traffic stop, truck occupants' unusual degree of movement in truck and refusal to obey officer's order to stay in truck, officer reasonably believed that occupants of truck posed a danger to officer.
When an airline passenger consents to a search of his or her effects at an airport security checkpoint, the scope of the search reasonably extends to those receptacles, the contents of which cannot be identified, contained in luggage. In detaining defendant for the purpose of determining if defendant was impaired and if defendant would consent to a search of defendant's vehicle, officer did not exceed the scope of a temporary investigative stop premised upon circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving while impaired or that defendant's vehicle might contain illicit substances.
Section does not apply to the interior office door of a store; however, as an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy exists at the interior office door of a store, police are required to provide reasonable notification of their presence and authority before making a forced entry; police satisfied this requirement by knocking three times, announcing "police department, search warrant", and waiting fifteen seconds before forcibly entering the locked interior office door of the store.
Use of thermal imager device to detect heat emanating from defendant's apartment constituted an unreasonable warrantless search; thus, information gained should have been excluded in the establishment of probable cause. Police may act on an anonymous tip of reckless driving, but only under very narrow circumstances; based on the totality of the circumstances, including the reliability of the tip and the imminence of the harm, an anonymous tip was sufficiently reliable to justify an investigatory stop. Even assuming the crime stoppers' anonymous tip was not "tainted" as a result of it being relayed to school officials via a police officer, the anonymous tip failed to provide even reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause, to justify the search of minor; the anonymous tip bore no indicia of reliability--the identity or status of the informant, the time the tip came in, the basis, if any, for the informant's knowledge, and the reliability of its assertion of illegality.
Reasonable suspicion for detaining defendant for the sole purpose of a canine screen did not exist where there were no specific facts to suggest that criminal activity was currently afoot that defendant had drugs or drug paraphernalia in defendant's possession ; the fact that defendant was a known drug dealer, when coupled with the fact that defendant had stolen an item that could have been used to smoke crystal methamphetamine, gave rise only to the inchoate suspicion that defendant might intend to engage in drug activity in the future. Officer's one-week-old knowledge that defendant's truck did not carry valid insurance—and that defendant had not acted to remedy the insurance violation in the preceding week-long interval—and officer's two-week-old knowledge that defendant was unlicensed were together sufficiently fresh to give rise to reasonable suspicion to execute the traffic stop.
Lack of "exigent circumstances" necessary to justify exception to search warrant requirement.
searches and seizures
Failure to show that arresting officer knew that person providing information was an eyewitness results in lack of proof of probable cause. Probable cause required before person can be detained for custodial interrogation. Affidavit in support of search warrant was adequate. Search or seizure need not be preceded by arrest in order to be "incident to" lawful arrest; conditions. Seizure valid under "plain feel" rule.
- pueblo county colorado clerk and recorder;
- change your name after marriage missouri.
Search of receptacles on premises; seizure of property; when within scope of warrant. Unconstitutional search of backpack where officer had exclusive control of backpack. Suspicionless drug testing of firefighters by urinalysis in conjunction with annual physical examination is not an unreasonable search.
Officer's order for defendant to exit vehicle was unlawful; thus, subsequent plain view of, search for, and seizure of incriminating evidence was tainted and should have been suppressed. Probable cause existed for issuance of warrant based on officer's affidavit that relied on police investigation as well as on informant's information.
Search and Seizure
Where warrant only authorized search of specific room of business and another subsequently discovered room of business separated by a hallway and other numbered and unnumbered rooms were also searched, other room was not within scope of warrant and constituted illegal search. Where private individual was not informed by police of discretionary nature of warrant issuing process and consequently assisted police by searching son's bedroom for evidence, individual became agent of police and individual's actions constituted improper warrantless search by government.
Right not violated where defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on busy public street, defendant took no precautions to insure privacy by screening defendant's presence or defendant's drug dealing activity from public view, and no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy for persons, objects, or activities which were visible to the public and captured by non-intrusive video camera. Feeling of the contents of defendant's fanny bag through its cover by officer was an intentional warrantless search of the interior of the fanny bag. Defendant had a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy not only in the general premises of the house, but also in the specific area that was defendant's bedroom; defendant's lack of property interest in defendant's parents' house was not a bar to a claim that defendant had a protected privacy interest in that house.
Exigent circumstances did not exist to justify warrantless police entry into and search of house, where, by securing the house believed to hold their quarry, the police had eliminated the perceived threat posed by a free-roaming, allegedly armed suspect, and by closing off the street, the police were in control of the situation, thus having sufficient time to consider their options, plan and obtain a search warrant. Where defendant exhibited an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in defendant's bedroom by keeping door locked at all times, and no other person had the key or access to the room, and as an adult child living with parents is not uncommon in this State, defendant's expectation was one that society was prepared to recognize as objectively "reasonable"; thus, defendant's privacy interests in common areas of parents' house and in defendant's bedroom were constitutionally protected.
Where totality of circumstances clearly showed that store asset protection agent conducted a purely private search of defendant with no governmental involvement, trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Right not violated where police officer's search of defendant's fanny pack found by hotel guest and already inventoried by hotel security fell under the lost property inventory exception to the warrant requirement.
Warrantless seizure of plaintiff's vehicle not unconstitutional where seizure was from a public place and officers had probable cause to believe it was forfeitable contraband.
Applying the totality of the circumstances test, trial court correctly determined that adult video store clerk was not acting as a "government agent"; clerk was not actively recruited, directed, or paid by the police, and clerk's actions were for a private purpose--to make sure defendant was complying with video store's no-smoking policy and not doing anything that would harm the store. Warrantless seizure of defendant's glass pipe and its contents justified where police had probable cause to arrest defendant after viewing defendant smoking glass pipe in video booth, and exigent circumstances existed as defendant was lawfully observed ingesting an illegal drug and any delay would allow more, if not all, of the drugs to be consumed, and as defendant rented video booth for only half an hour, defendant would likely have finished defendant's "business" long before police could have obtained a warrant.
Where defendant took no steps to cover up "glory hole" in adult video preview booth, defendant could not have reasonably expected that defendant's conduct would not be viewed through the glory hole; thus, defendant could not have had a subjective expectation of privacy in the video preview booth that society would recognize as objectively reasonable. Defendant was not subject to a de facto arrest not supported by probable cause where officers' use or display of force was reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety, was in response to defendant's erratic and hostile behavior, and defendant's conduct made it reasonable for the officers to insist that defendant submit to a pat-down search for weapons.
When police officers encounter someone while lawfully at a residence to execute an arrest warrant, the officers may detain that person and perform a pat-down search for weapons if the officers have a reasonable and articulable basis to suspect that the person may possess a weapon and pose a danger; the officers may compel such person to submit to a pat-down search for weapons even if the officers have no reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. Authorization in search warrant to search any personal, rental, or borrowed vehicle that defendant was operating or occupying was not unconstitutionally overbroad, and was sufficiently particularized where authorization was based on probable cause that defendant would be in possession of ice, and would be transporting it in any number of different vehicles in which defendant was either the operator or an occupant.
Where defendant removed defendant's fanny pack from waist and attempted to discard it four different times, defendant did not exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy in the fanny pack; even assuming defendant did, defendant's expectation of privacy was not objectively reasonable where defendant failed to establish that defendant had a privacy interest in the places defendant attempted to throw the fanny pack; thus, where defendant voluntarily threw the fanny pack onto a building roof top, defendant abandoned defendant's expectation of privacy.
Where defendant spontaneously denied ownership of nylon bag in response to a request to sign a consent to search form, rather than in response to police interrogation, defendant's unequivocal disclaimer of ownership showed defendant's intent to abandon the bag, thus relinquishing any expectation of privacy defendant had in the contents of the bag; thus, warrantless search of the bag by police did not violate this Amendment. Where officer approached defendant as a potential witness who might be able to assist in officer's investigation about the stolen car and asked for defendant's name and identifying information, and there was no evidence to suggest that officer drew officer's weapon, made any coercive displays of authority, or questioned defendant in an overbearing or harassing manner, defendant was not seized at that time; only after defendant had disclosed defendant's identity, officer realized who defendant was, and officer directed defendant to sit down did officer, by means of officer's show of authority, restrain defendant's liberty.
Where officer's knowledge that a computer check by dispatch had revealed an outstanding warrant for defendant was sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion, officer was authorized to detain defendant; thus, trial court properly determined that defendant's detention was lawful. Use of black light to detect presence of substance was a permissible search incident to arrest.
Contemporaneous arrest of defendant of search of automobile, discussed.
- sex offender ohio february 15 2008!
- Fourth Amendment | UpCounsel ?
- social security death index certificate information?
- finding a phone number for free?
- using mac address to find ip.
- california department of correctionis inmate search!
- Drug Testing :: Fourth Amendment -- Search and Seizure :: US Constitution Annotated :: Justia!
Defendant did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy once police opened address book. Search not unreasonable where, after defendant was handcuffed and seated in hallway, black bag within defendant's control was searched within three minutes of defendant's arrest.
Search of defendant's handbag in vehicle valid where search made contemporaneous to arrest. Because the initial search of defendant's cellular telephone was valid, the secondary search was also valid, where telephone remained in the custody of law enforcement after being taken from defendant's person and searched at the scene, and then searched again at the federal building. Search of defendant's black bag was a valid warrantless search where, among other things, the bag was within defendant's immediate control when defendant was detained and arrested, and no intervening events occurred between when defendant was detained and arrested and when agent initially searched the bag.
Search of defendant's wallet about an hour after the wallet was taken from defendant's person when defendant was arrested was a reasonable search and fell squarely within the search incident to arrest exception. Search without warrant after a lawful arrest is not constitutionally interdicted.
Rule 41 - Search, Seizure, and Confession, Colo. R. Crim. P. 41 | Casetext
Validity of search incidental to arrest as dependent upon probable cause for the arrest, whether probable cause may be based on hearsay. In making search of handbag incidental to lawful arrest for being present at gambling game, officers may seize marijuana cigarettes though the evidence is of a different crime. Search of automobile without warrant incident to arrest upon probable cause. Where search of coin purse conducted for drugs two hours after arrest was not reasonably related either in time or to the circumstances which might have justified it the shoplifting arrest and a search for evidence of that offense , search was not incident to the shoplifting arrest.
Latest Product News
Defendants occupying vehicle unlawfully had no standing to contest search of vehicle. When property is seized in defendant's home, defendant may invoke protection without asserting ownership of property.
- list of sc felony drug offenses;
- The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies;
- st lucie county florida misdemeanor probation;
- Criminal Procedure;
- Fourth Amendment – Annenberg Classroom;
- birth certificate name change mississippi.
Overnight guest of tenant of apartment had right to privacy in premises of that apartment; a person has right to privacy wherever the person may legitimately be. One who is the victim of search and seizure directed against oneself has standing to raise question of validity of search.
Related interdiction of unreasonable searches and seizures warrants
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved