Search & Seizure Law Case
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Each year the U.S. Supreme Court returns to certain issues that it has decided in the past to reshape, redirect, or clarify with new cases that ask new questions. Search and seizure law is one such area of criminal law, and the courts have addressed this issue many times in an attempt to refine the requirements faced by police in conducting searches, in the admissibility of evidence seized during a search, in the need for a warrant for a search, and so on. In the 1992-1993 Supreme Court session, the Justices returned to this issue with a case from Minnesota, Minnesota v. Dickerson (113 S. Ct. 2130 [1993]). The Court had previously provided some exceptions to the requirement for a warrant for a search under "stop and frisk" provisions allowing a police officer to stop and question a person reasonably suspected of criminal activity and to search that person if the officer had a justifiable belief that the person was armed and dangerous. The office under such circumstances could search for and seize any weapons that the individual might be carrying. Another exception to the need for a warrant for a search was the "plain view" exception under which the frisking officer might seize non-weapon contraband that can be visually recognized at the time of a lawful search. In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the Supreme Court would grant another exception, this time one that would be called the "plain feel" corollary to the plain view doctrine. An examination of the decision
. . .
1968, 180-181).
However, a warrant is not always necessary to search a home, for the law recognizes that the privacy of the home may be invaded by the police under certain circumstances, with the obvious example being when a policeman pursues a felon into a home. The most important exception to the requirement for a search warrant was that of the search incidental to a lawful arrest. This exception begins with the common-law rule permitting police officers to search the person of someone being subjected to a lawful arrest. The right to search the person incident to a lawful arrest is a matter of necessity and is permitted for three primary reasons: 1) to protect the arresting officer; 2) to deprive the prisoner of potential means of escape; and 3) to avoid destruction of evidence by the arrested person. In 1925, the Supreme Court ruled in Carroll v. United States (267 U.S. 132, 158 [1925]) that whatever a person has in their possession when they are arrested can be seized and held as evidence in their prosecution. Soon after that the Court expanded the limited right to search the arrested person and to seize whatever was found upon his person or in his control so that the police could search the place where the arrest was ma
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Fourth Amendment, Supreme Court, Arizona Hicks, Timothy Dickerson, Revolution British, Terry Court, Terry Ohio, Marron United, Minnesota Dickerson, Justice White, supreme court, fourth amendment, stop frisk, warrant search, plain feel, searches seizures, search warrant, crack cocaine, search seizure, probable cause, initial stop frisk, ohio 392 1, unreasonable searches seizures, 392 1 1968, supreme court agreed,
Approximate Word count = 3678
Approximate Pages = 15 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Search & Seizure Law Case
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
