Difference between revisions of "Search and Seizure"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
This small, yet mighty amendment has been interpreted by courts in many ways. Following a are a few of the key cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court outlined a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. | This small, yet mighty amendment has been interpreted by courts in many ways. Following a are a few of the key cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court outlined a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. | ||
| − | *Draper v. United States | + | *'''Draper v. United States''' - Search and seizure of a person, based on hearsay statements provided by a paid informant who had proved reliable in the past, was based on probable cause and therefore constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. |
| − | *Illinois v. Gates | + | *'''Illinois v. Gates''' - Probable cause should be based on the totality of the circumstances. |
| − | *Ornelas v. United States | + | *'''Ornelas v. United States''' - Detectives can draw inferences based on experience in order to have probable cause. An appeals court should give due weight to finding that |
| + | |||
===Scope of Permissible Search=== | ===Scope of Permissible Search=== | ||
*'''Chimel v. California''' - Absent exigent circumstances and probable cause, Police may not search home when they are arresting defendant pursuant to an arrest warrant. However, a 'Chimel Search' is permitted on arrestee's person and the immediate area from which he can either destroy evidence or gain access to a weapon.("Grabable Space") | *'''Chimel v. California''' - Absent exigent circumstances and probable cause, Police may not search home when they are arresting defendant pursuant to an arrest warrant. However, a 'Chimel Search' is permitted on arrestee's person and the immediate area from which he can either destroy evidence or gain access to a weapon.("Grabable Space") | ||
