{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

LS305-01 Constitutional Law Unit 5 assignment

Skinrood conducted his search without a warrant and

Info iconThis preview shows pages 5–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Skinrood conducted his search without a warrant, and warrantless searches are presumptively invalid. State v. Galazin , 58 S.W.3d 500, 505 (Mo. banc 2001). To satisfy the Fourth Amendment, the state must establish that the search fit within one of the exceptions to the probable cause and warrant requirements. Among these exceptions are investigatory detentions, Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and seizure of items in plain view, Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). The state asserts that Skinrood's warrantless search was justified, because, when he first saw the plastic bag, it was in plain sight; hence, the “plain view doctrine” applied. In certain situations, police may seize, without a warrant, evidence that is in plain view. In Horton v. California , 496 U.S. 128, 136-37, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990), the United States Supreme Court has ruled that, for the state to justify its search under the plain view doctrine, it must prove that three conditions have been satisfied: (1) that police “did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed,” id. at 136, 110 S.Ct. 2301; (2) that the searching officer had a lawful right of access to the evidence itself, id. at 137, 110 S.Ct. 2301; and (3) that the incriminating character of the evidence seized was immediately apparent, id. at 136, 110 S.Ct. 2301. Also, a search warrant is not required for a valid search when owner authorizes it. While a
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LS305-01 Constitutional Law Unit 5 assignment warrantless search and seizure inside a dwelling is presumptively unreasonable, such “a search is not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when lawful consent to the search is given.” State v. Smith , 346 N.C. 794, 798, 488 S.E.2d 210, 213 (1997); see also N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-221(a) (1997) (officer may conduct warrantless search and seizure if consent is given). “Consent to search, freely and intelligently given, renders competent the evidence thus obtained.” State v. Frank , 284 N.C. 137, 143, 200 S.E.2d 169, 174 (1973). “ ‘Knock and talk’ is a procedure utilized by law enforcement officers to obtain a consent to search when they lack the probable cause necessary to obtain a search warrant.” Smith , 346 N.C. at 800, 488 S.E.2d at 214.
Background image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Fall '12
  • UNKNOWN
  • Supreme Court of the United States, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Constitutional Law Unit, LS305-01 Constitutional Law

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page5 / 6

Skinrood conducted his search without a warrant and...

This preview shows document pages 5 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online