Conducting Constitutional Searches
The United States Supreme Court defined laws that allowed law enforcement officers to conduct searches without a warrant. These elements may contradict the 4th Amendment that enforces the need for police officers to have a permit as an aspect that supports the judicial review of action that an administration conducts. Police officers should understand the continuous changes that occur in the Constitutional Law so that they comprehend the rationale for doing particular operations. The case “Arizona v. Gant 2009” illustrates the review that the country conducts its legal search criteria and indicates the evolution that occurs in national policies (Harr et al. 269). The following are Constitutional Law elements that officers should understand as they conduct their operations.
Searches with Consent
Police officers can look for drugs, weapons, or other materials that may pose a risk to the community with the agreement of a suspect. The process proceeds when an individual provides voluntary consent for the law enforcement personnel to search for a property. The Fourth Amendment requires that the person must first wave his/her rights for the police to initiate a warrantless search and seizure. In case police get the evidence as a result of this process and proceed to court, the prosecution must provide that the process of acquiring the exhibit was through a voluntary process. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Frisks
The procedure is a type of search that occurs when a police officer believes that a suspect is armed and may be dangerous to the police. The brief stop investigation happens when a law enforcement officer has a reasonable suspicion that the officer bases on a particular aspect that the suspect engages in criminal behavior (Harr et al. 282). The ruling on ‘Terry v. Ohio, 1968’ showed that police officers could frisk citizens without a warrant as such procedures ensure their safety. Fleeing from the police, a bulging from one’s cloth, suspects hand in the pocket are some factors that may necessitate frisking in the United States.
Plain Feel/Touch
The issue refers to a situation that police find contraband materials on a suspect through lawful search during a frisk. In 1993, the Supreme Court directed that law enforcement officers do not require a warrant to seize drugs or weapons provided that the staff recognized these elements through lain feel or touch (Harr et al. 283). Plain feel or touch is an expanded operation that an officer conducts when there is evidence that indicates that an object is a contraband.
Plain View Evidence
The ‘plain view evidence’ exception allows a police officer to seize any contraband or weapon that an officer finds during a lawful search. The Supreme Court directed in the case ‘Kyllo v. United States’ the police can present to the court pieces of materials that they collect during a lawful search as evidence. The court described the plain view as the process of obtaining unconcealed evidence that an officer sees while carrying out a search in lawful stops (Harr et al. 483). An example is when a government official saw a drug on a table while searching for a property.
Searches Incident to Lawful Arrest
The U.S. law states that police officers can conduct searches to an individual that is in lawful custody. However, as illustrated by the case ‘Chimel v California,’ the police should perform the search immediately and confine the process to an individual’s wingspan (Harr et al. 287). The exception allows warrantless search as an approach to promote an officer’s safety and will enable the recovery of the contraband material.
The Automobile Exception
The clause provides that if government personnel can stop and search a vehicle if he believes that the automobile is transporting contraband materials. The Supreme Court allowed this exception as cars are mobile, and it would take a significant amount of time for a police officer to travel to the station and get a judge to sign a warrant (Harr et al. 293). The warrantless search arose due to the case ‘Carroll v. United States (1925)’ when the police suspected that Carroll and Kiro were transporting bootleg liquor illegally. The National Prohibition Act also allows for a warrantless search as an approach to control the illegal transportation of alcoholic products.
Exigent Circumstances
The law allows police officers to conduct a warrantless search if it requires an emergency. The model enables law enforcement agencies to collect evidence before the suspects destroy the evidence (Harr et al. 296). The court stated that the police must showcase the incidence entailed an extenuating circumstance for the court to admit the seized materials as evidence in a case. The ruling arose from the case ‘United States v Johnson (1972)’ as that court found that there was evidence that the suspects would destroy the evidence of possessing a case full of shotguns.
Open Field
The court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not protect any material that a person holds in a public view as no privacy applies in such a situation. For instance, the court ruled in the case ‘California v. Ciralo (1986)’ that police officers can search undeveloped land without a warrant as the aspect does not breach the fourth Amendment (Harr et al. 300).
Abandoned Property and Public Places
The concept is similar to the ‘open field’ rule that allows law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless search in a property. The court also ruled that there is no privacy breach when a police officer searches and seizes materials after a person abandons the possessions.
Works Cited
Harr, J. Scott, et al. Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Cengage Learning, 2014.