Arrest warrants

  • Explain when arrest warrants are required. Likewise, explain when search warrants are required. • Explain the search incident to arrest doctrine. Also, summarize the plain view doctrine • What are the other main exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement? • Explain the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio. • Most Supreme Court cases pertaining to search and seizure involve actions that took place many years ago. Recently, however, there have been some new decisions rendered due to changing technology (2010 to present). Research one and discuss the implications of new technologies for the Fourth Amendment. (i.e., GPS tracking, thermal imaging, cellphone searches, etc.)    

Sample Solution

 
  • When are arrest warrants required?

An arrest warrant is required in most cases before a police officer can arrest someone. There are a few exceptions to this rule, such as when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person is about to commit a crime (hot pursuit) or when the person is caught in the act of committing a crime (fruit of the poisonous tree).

Full Answer Section

   
  • When are search warrants required?
A search warrant is required in most cases before a police officer can search a person's property. There are a few exceptions to this rule, such as when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person is in possession of evidence of a crime (plain view doctrine) or when the officer has consent to search the property (consent search).
  • Explain the search incident to arrest doctrine. Also, summarize the plain view doctrine
The search incident to arrest doctrine allows police officers to search the person and the area within their immediate control after an arrest. This is because the officer has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and dangerous, and that the person may be able to destroy evidence of the crime. The plain view doctrine allows police officers to seize evidence that is in plain view if the officer has probable cause to believe that the evidence is connected to a crime. The officer does not need a warrant to seize evidence under the plain view doctrine.
  • What are the other main exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement?
The other main exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement are:
  • Emergency searches: Police officers can conduct a warrantless search if they have probable cause to believe that there is an immediate danger to life or property.
  • Consent searches: A person can consent to a search of their property, even if the police do not have a warrant.
  • Exigent circumstances: Police officers can conduct a warrantless search if there is an emergency situation that prevents them from getting a warrant.
  • Automobile exception: Police officers can search an automobile without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the automobile contains evidence of a crime.
  • Border searches: Police officers can conduct warrantless searches at the border, without probable cause.
  • Explain the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio.
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that police officers can stop and frisk a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. The Court reasoned that the stop and frisk is a limited intrusion on the person's Fourth Amendment rights, and that it is justified by the need to protect the officer and the public.
  • Most Supreme Court cases pertaining to search and seizure involve actions that took place many years ago. Recently, however, there have been some new decisions rendered due to changing technology (2010 to present). Research one and discuss the implications of new technologies for the Fourth Amendment. (i.e., GPS tracking, thermal imaging, cellphone searches, etc.)
One recent Supreme Court case that deals with the implications of new technology for the Fourth Amendment is Riley v. California. In Riley, the Court held that the police cannot search a person's cellphone without a warrant. The Court reasoned that cellphones are now such an integral part of our lives that they contain a vast amount of personal information. The Court also found that the police could not get a warrant for the cellphone search without first getting a warrant for the person's arrest. This decision has implications for the use of other new technologies by the police, such as GPS tracking and thermal imaging. These technologies can also be used to collect a vast amount of personal information, and the police may need to get a warrant before using them. The implications of new technologies for the Fourth Amendment are still being debated. However, the Riley decision is a step in the right direction, and it protects our privacy rights in the digital age.

IS IT YOUR FIRST TIME HERE? WELCOME

USE COUPON "11OFF" AND GET 11% OFF YOUR ORDERS