Search and Seizure

Search and Seizure

The fourth amendment in the constitution seeks to protect people from unwarranted searches and seizures, where it states that evidence gotten unlawfully without a warrant should not be used against a person in a court of law. In this scenario, it seems that the search in the house was not warranted considering the procedures of a warrant were not sought by the police in conducting an investigation. Before searching for any evidence concerning a crime, the police are supposed to get a warrant from a judge or a magistrate’s office. When the police arrived, they asked for permission to search for evidence from the victim’s wife, in their house after she provided information that Ellis had entered her house unannounced and tried to get in her bed. However, in the house of the scene, the owner was not available since Mrs. Ellis was in the hospital undergoing treatment.

In the exclusionary rule, the law asserts that there are situations where a warrant less entry to the crime scene can be allowed (Hornberger, 2005). When it is likely that life is under threat or there is a threat to safety, an emergency entry is allowed (Crawford, 2000). For crime scenes, when the police are called, their entry is allowed to assess whether there is any sought of threat. The other situations that warrants an emergency entry is if there is the possibility of destruction or removing of evidence that could lead to brining the suspect to justice. The third situation warranting an emergency entry of the police in a crime scene is when there is possibility of escape of the suspect before the police arrive (Crawford, 2000). With any of these three situations available, the police are allowed to enter a crime scene. In this case, the police were allowed to enter the house since there was the likelihood of destruction of the evidence, and escape since they did not know whether the killer was within the house. On the issue of a threat to safety and life, it was not certain that the people in the house were safe when Mrs. Ellis called the police (Crawford, 2000).

In all crime scenes, there cannot lack one of the above-mentioned situations that allow the police to enter without a search warrant. However, the extent of their entry and activities around the crime scene should not go beyond the three situations. The most likely situation is destruction of evidence, and the police should protect the crime scene without interfering with it until there is a warrant for conducting a search and collection of evidence. When the police go beyond the scope of the emergency entry that warranted their search, evidence collected from that cannot be admissible in a trial. The stay of the police in the crime scene in an emergency entry is dictated by the exigent of the situation that warranted an emergency entry (Crawford, 2000). Once the emergency entry is no longer necessary, the police are not allowed to interfere or stay any longer.

In this case, the police were warranted an emergency entry, but they went overboard in searching the other rooms for evidence. The police had no right to call the detectives without a warrant of search for any evidence. The police only had the right to locate whether there was any likelihood of the three situations, and after asserting that no one was in danger or any likely escapee as well as destruction of evidence, they had no other business being there. At the time, the detectives and crime scene investigators searched the house, developed a print from Ellis’ index finger, and conducted a DNA test that proved the print belonged to Ellis while the bloodstain belonged to the victim; they had exceeded their warranted stay in the crime scene under an emergency entry. Therefore, Ellis’ lawyer can file for exclusion of the evidence collected in the crime scene without a warrant, which was illegal. The evidence collected from Ellis home and one collected from Stevens are quite different considering Mrs. Stevens gave her consent and gave some information to the police voluntarily.

The legal justification for a search means having the legal document as stipulated by the law, which allows law enforcement officer to search personal property as well as items (Hornberger, 2005). For police to intrude a person’s privacy, they have to have a warrant. In this case, the only legal justifications for a search were only the time the police were allowed an emergency stay. After they had done what was necessary, which is ensuring the evidence was preserved, safety of people within the premises, and that there was no likelihood of a suspect escaping since Ellis was not there at the time, they were supposed to leave or vacate the premises until they got the warrant to continue further investigations.

In the case of United States v. Johnson, ten police officers in Detroit got the report on Angela Skinner. The report stated that she had been kidnapped and was held in the house of the defendant. The police officers knocked on the door upon arrival at the house where the victim was held. The victim confirmed the report by answering the knock, but said she could not open the door since she was held behind an armored gate by the defendant before he had left. Then the officers sought the supervisor’s approval that allowed them a forced entry in the house and freed skinner.

After freeing her, she told the police officers that the she had been raped by the defendant several times at gunpoint, and that he had threatened to kill her incase she tried to escape or even tell anyone. She went ahead to show where the defendant had kept his guns in the closet, and the police seized a quantity of ammunition and three guns. Then the officers left without searching the rest of the house. In this case, the officers acted according to the law since their emergency entry was warranted, where the three situations existed. The life of the victim was in danger, they needed to protect the evidence and prevent any escape although the defendant turned out to be absent (Crawford, 2000).

The exclusionary rule states that police should have warrants before entering to search a person’s house, property, documents, among other personal items. This rule is meant to protect people and ensure their freedom, unfair searches and seizures. The rule also seeks to deny the use of evidence collected unlawfully in a trial to ensure fairness. On the other hand, the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine states that evidence gotten from secondary sources is secondary and cannot b used against the defendant (Rodriguez, 2012). In technical terms, the terms means that any evidence gotten from a distorted source, ‘poisonous tree’ gives distorted results, ‘fruit’. It also means the same as the exclusionary rule, where it seeks to protect people from evidence collected during illegal searches. When the officer conduct an illegal search, this is considered a poisonous tree since it is illegal, and the evidence gotten later from such a warrant is a poisonous fruit and should not be used in a trial against a defendant (Rodriguez, 2012). In this case, the evidence collected by the law officers was illegal since it was collected from an illegal search, which makes it a poisonous fruit since the evidence was collected from a poisonous tree. The case can qualify to be in the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ considering the whole search, including developing of the print was illegal.

If I were conducting this investigation, there are several steps or procedures that I could have followed. The first one is responding to the call just as the police did, and search around the house for any potential escapee before they escape. The second step would be ensuring that there was no danger or threat to life for people in the house. Thirdly, I could have checked for any evidence needing protection within reasonable time that an emergency entry would allow. After this procedure, I would leave the scene and seek a search and seizure warrant in order to come back later and conduct a detailed search and investigation. This way, any evidence that I provide would illegal to eliminate possibilities of having to face the exclusionary rule. During the emergency entry, I would only go through the other rooms to check whether there was anybody else, and whether there was any evidence that would be removed in order to protect it.

 

References

Crawford, K. A. (2000). Crime scene searches: the need for Fourth Amendment compliance. Retrieved from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_1_68/ai_54036508/pg_3/

Hornberger, J. G. (2005). The Bill of Rights: Searches and Seizures. Retrieved from: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0410a.asp

Rodriguez, S. G. (2012). Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine. Retrieved from: http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/Legal-Dictionary/F/FIRS-FZ/Fruit-of-Poisonous-Tree-Doctrine.aspx

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]