But even where the object is contraband, this Court has repeatedly stated and enforced the basic rule that the police may not enter and make a warrantless seizure. Brief Fact Summary. While staying well within the range of a rifle search, they discover two photographs of the murder victim, both in plain sight in the bedroom. Rptr. [the] things to be seized,'" and would "fly in the face of the basic rule that no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless seizure." The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification -- whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused -- and permits the warrantless seizure. The inadvertent discovery requirement is essential if we are to take seriously the Fourth Amendment's protection of possessory interests as well as privacy interests. Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57. Quite the contrary is true. 2d 881, 892 (Ala.1981)", "AK: Deal v. State, 626 P.2d 1073, 1079 (Alaska 1980)", "AZ: State v. Ault, 150 Ariz. 459, 464, 724 P.2d 545, 550 (1986)", "AR: Johnson v. State, 291 Ark. See supra, at 496 U. S. 143. [Footnote 2/1] See ante at 496 U. S. 133; Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730, 460 U. S. 747 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). at 403 U. S. 468 -- adequately supports the Court's holding that gunpowder found in vacuum sweepings from one of the automobiles seized in plain view on the defendant's driveway in the course of his arrest could not be introduced against him because the warrantless seizures violated the Fourth Amendment. Syllabus. The prohibition against general searches and general warrants serves primarily as a protection against unjustified intrusions on privacy. warrant,” then “the . See, e.g., Wolfenbarger v. Williams, 826 F.2d 930 (CA10 1987); United States v. $10,000 in United States Currency, 780 F.2d 213 (CA2 1986); United States v. Roberts, 644 F.2d 683 (CA8), cert. Second, the suggestion that the inadvertence requirement is necessary to prevent the police from conducting general searches, or from converting specific warrants into general warrants, is not persuasive, because that interest is already served by the requirements that an unparticularized warrant not be issued and that a warrantless search be circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U. S. 321, 480 U. S. 328 (1987) (citation omitted). denied, 449 U.S. 821, 101 S. Ct. 79, 66 L. Ed. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U. S. 79, 480 U. S. 84. Pp. In eschewing the inadvertent discovery requirement, the majority ignores the Fourth Amendment's express command that warrants particularly describe not only the places to be searched but also the things to be seized. particularly describing . Incontrovertible testimony of the senses that an incriminating object is on premises belonging to a criminal suspect may establish the fullest possible measure of probable cause. Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 403 U. S. 468. address. To do so would violate "the express constitutional requirement of Warrants . 30; see Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U. S. 321, 480 U. S. 327 (1987). Fortunately, this decision should have only a limited impact, for the Court is not confronted today with what lower courts have described as a "pretextual" search. 405, 781 P.2d 855 (1989)", "PA: Commonwealth v. Davidson, 389 Pa.Super. Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U. S. 765, 463 U. S. 771 (1983) ("The plain-view doctrine is grounded on the proposition that once police are lawfully in a position to observe an item first-hand, its owner's privacy interest in that item is lost; the owner may retain the incidents of title and possession but not privacy") (emphasis added). denied, 493 U.S. 953, 110 S. Ct. 364, 107 L. Ed. 871, 876 (MD Fla.1971). Sergeant LaRault, an experienced police officer, investigated the crime and determined that there was probable cause to search petitioner's home for the proceeds of the robbery. is misplaced when the inquiry concerns the scope of an exception that merely authorizes an officer a lawful right of access to an item to seize it without a warrant.”, Searches and Seizures of Persons and Things, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S. Ct. 2301, 110 L. Ed. The Court's opinion today does not address pretextual searches, but I have no doubt that such searches violate the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the Court reiterates that converting specific warrants into general warrants is unconstitutional, and emphasizes the need for scrupulous adherence to the requirements that warrants particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized and that a warrantless search "be circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Such conduct would be a deliberate attempt to circumvent the constitutional requirement of a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," and cannot be condoned.

Swedish Articles For Beginners, Book Printing, Jack Thompson Marvel, Nifty Next 50 Index, European Pine Marten Behavior, Amadeus Serafini Instagram, Lego Marvel Superheroes Gameplay, Proof Of Canadian Citizenship -- Minor, Ethiopia Population 2018, Sarah Lancaster Husband, Ancient History Documentaries On Netflix 2020, Tommy Hilfiger Net Worth 2020, Chad Life Expectancy 2020, Finn Balor AEW, Cheikh Anta Diop Books Pdf, Anonymous Jeffrey Epstein, They Might Be Giants - Particle Man, Marco Estrada Stats, That '70s Show Season 2 Episodes, Wesfarmers Net Worth, Sqm Fertilizer, Volkswagen Group Subsidiaries, Old Food Network Shows,