|
Real0ne -> RE: Can you hear me now? NSA & Verizon can (6/7/2013 9:41:29 AM)
|
quote:
In the UK, government authorities can "self-authorize" their own information requests,
we have the mirrored law, its the same way here, just have to get permission from another agency and in many cases not
1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
A search incident to lawful arrest does not require issuance of a warrant. In other words, if someone is lawfully arrested, the police may search her person and any area surrounding the person that is within reach (within his or her “wingspan”). See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The rationale is that the search is permissible as a protective measure.
2. Plain View Exception
No warrant is required to seize evidence in plain view if the police are legitimately in the location from which the evidence can be viewed. For example, an officer cannot illegally enter a suspect’s back yard and then use the plain view exception to seize an illegally kept alligator living in the pool. But, if on the premises to serve a warrant duly issued to search for marijuana plants, the alligator, if in plain view, can rightly (though by no means easily) be seized.
3. Consent
If consent is given by a person reasonably believed by an officer to have authority to give such consent, no warrant is required for a search or seizure. So, if a suspect’s "significant other" provides police with a key to the suspect’s apartment, and police reasonably believe that she lives there, the search will not violate suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights even if she did not live there and even if she, in fact, lacked authority to consent, . See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).
4. Stop & Frisk
Police may stop a suspect so long as there is a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. The evidence necessary for “reasonable suspicion” here is something beyond mere suspicion, but is less than the level required for probable cause. If there is reason to believe that the person may be armed and dangerous, the police can also frisk the suspect. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
5. Automobile Exception
Because vehicles are obviously highly mobile, a warrant is not required to search vehicles if police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, the instrumentalities of crime, contraband, or the fruits of a crime. Although commonly referred to as the “automobile exception,” this rule applies to any vehicle, including boats. While in some ways, it is quite a broad exception, this rule limits the ability to search those areas which might contain evidence of the type suspected to be present. In other words, if police suspect that the occupant of a boat is smuggling people across the border, searching a small tackle box on board would not be permissible. However, if they were looking for drugs, they could search the tackle box. The rationale is that, if an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle might be out of reach before the warrant can be issued and executed. See Carroll v. United States, 267 US. 132 (1925).
6. Emergencies/Hot Pursuit
The rationale here is similar to the automobile exception. Evidence that can be easily moved, destroyed or otherwise made to disappear before a warrant can be issued may be seized without a warrant. Furthermore, if a suspect enters private property while being pursued by officers, no warrant is required to enter that property in order to continue pursuit, even if the suspect is in no way connected with the property owner.
Unless the fact-pattern fits one of the six exceptions discussed above, a warrant is required for police to conduct a search or seizure. Note that for Exception 1, search incident to a lawful arrest, and Exception 5, the automobile exception, although no warrant is required, there is a probable cause requirement. For a search incident to a lawful arrest, the officer must have had probable cause for the original arrest. If the original arrest was unreasonable or unlawful, the evidence discovered from the search will be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree (see the subchapter on the Exclusionary Rule). For the Automobile Exception, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, instrumentalities of a crime, contraband, or fruits of a crime, whether the vehicle is moving or already stopped. Exception 4 ("stop and frisk") does not require probable cause, but does require "reasonable suspicion." Only Exception 3 (consent) requires no grounds on the part of the police for making the search.http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp
That is the problem with police state enforcement. the old law was based almost solely on injury, "corpus delecti".
They infringe upon rights when enforcing police actions which nearly invariably are designed to circumvent by ANY means an actual injury to person or property.
speeding for instance, who got hurt? no one. no injury you simply broke a police rule, then they break con law to enforce policing rules that they made that have no bonafide injury attached, hence no case, judge dredd law.
No requirement prove injury occurred only that you were a bad boy and disobeyed the LEW!
|
|
|
|
