Difference between revisions of "Search and Seizure"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
'''Border Searches, Plain view, Open Fields, Public Schools, Railroad Employees, Administrative Searches''' | '''Border Searches, Plain view, Open Fields, Public Schools, Railroad Employees, Administrative Searches''' | ||
*'''United States v. Flores-Montana''' - | *'''United States v. Flores-Montana''' - | ||
| − | *Arizona v. Hiccks - | + | *'''Arizona v. Hiccks''' - Plain view doctrine says that an office may seize evidence if 1) Officer is lawfully where it is and 2) The officer has probable cause to seize the item. In this case, however, the plain view doctrine was rejected because the police officer picked up an item to see the serial number hidden from plain view. |
| − | *California v. Greenwood - | + | *'''California v. Greenwood''' - The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. |
| − | *Oliver v. United States - | + | *'''Oliver v. United States''' - Individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities concluded out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home (Curtilage) |
| − | *New Jersey v. TLO - | + | *'''New Jersey v. TLO''' - The legality of a search of a student depends on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances of the search. Test has two prongs: 1) whether action was justified at its inception (reasonable grounds for suspecting that student has violated or is violating law or rule of school) 2) was search as conducted was "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place" |
| − | *Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association - | + | *'''Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association''' - Probable Cause is not required four routine post-accident blood, urine and breath tests when the privacy interests implicated are minimal and the government interest at stake is high. |
| − | *Camara v. Municipal Court - | + | *'''Camara v. Municipal Court''' - In order to execute an administrative search of a housing premises, inspector requires a warrant. |
| − | *New York v. Burger - | + | *'''New York v. Burger''' - Warrantless inspection of property is reasonable where privacy interests of owner are weakened and government interests are concomitantly higher. In order to qualify for this exception you must show: 1) Substantial government interest, 2) Warrantless inspections must be necessary to further regulatory scheme, 3) Statute's inspection program, in regulation and application, must provide a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. (For instance, carefully limited in time, place and scope) |
===Zimbabwe=== | ===Zimbabwe=== | ||
