Prevents illegal searches and seizures on properties

This preview shows page 3 - 6 out of 9 pages.

prevents illegal searches and seizures on properties without probable cause or a warrant (Michigan v. Tyler, 1978). During the times the officers collected evidence in the burnt building, none of them had warrants. There is a reasonable amount of time that is allowed for an investigator to conduct a warrantless search. In this case, this was only during the fire incident that evidence could have been collected to prevent it from getting damaged.The fire chief arrived at around 2.am, where he discovered the presence of plastic containers that pointed towards the possibility of arson. At this time, it was ok to search the premises for available evidence because it is the work of the fire chief to establish possibilities ofthe fire resulting from arson. Additionally, summoning a detective to help determine the possibilities of arson during this time does not violate any laws. However, after the fire got
MICHIGAN v. TYLER (1978) 4extinguished and the firefighters departed from the scene, any subsequent visits to the site for evidence collection require a warrant as established by the Fourth Amendment (Michigan v. Tyler, 1978). When the chief and his assistant returned to the scene after leaving, they needed to obtain warrants to re-enter the premises. The fire had been stopped, and the evidence was not at risk of damage anymore. Therefore, any re-entry to the building for a cursory examination wouldrequire a signed warrant that permits entry, search, and seizure. However, since the fire chief and his assistant failed to follow the right channels when they headed back to investigate for further signs of arson, they violated the Fourth Amendment. Any evidence collected at this time can easily be dismissed in court because the right procedures were not followed. The Fourth Amendment only allowed for search and seizure during an active scene, for example, during the time of the fire and for a reasonable amount of time after the fire got extinguished (Michigan v. Tyler, 1978). During the revisit by the chief and his assistant, they either needed consent from Tyler, an administrative search warrant, or a criminal search warrant. They lacked all three hence making their findings dismissible in court asevidence. Additionally, Assistant chief Sommerville also returned with detective Webb to conduct further analysis and establish further evidence of arson. They also lacked warrants for search and seizures.Furthermore, a series of subsequent visits to the scene was conducted by Sgt. Hoffman from the Michigan State Police Arson Section from February 16th (Michigan v. Tyler, 1978). During his investigations, Hoffman discovered more evidence that could prove crucial to the investigation and play an essential role during the trial. However, this evidence was also obtainedwithout any warrant that allowed for search and seizure of further evidence. Sgt. Hoffman also lacked the consent of the defendants to search their premises for evidence, which makes all the
MICHIGAN v. TYLER (1978) 5evidence found during this time dismissible in court. These constitutional protection issues resulted in the defendants objecting to the introduction of evidence gathered without warrants.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture