Search Result: Search and Seizure

After pussyfooting around the issue for years, the U.S. Supreme Court has finally come to a decision on what justifies a probation or parole search.

Any law enforcement entry into private premises, including a residence, or an office or other commercial area that is not open to the public, is governed by the Fourth Amendment. Officers may make lawful entry only in four ways, and the consequences of unlawful entry can include suppression of evidence and civil liability.

One of the "firmly established exceptions" to the warrant requirement for searches and seizures is the "consent exception."

The Fourth Amendment governs three forms of activity: searches (intrusions into privacy), seizures of the person (detentions and arrests), and seizures of property. If these acts are not authorized by judicial warrant, they must come within one or more of the court-created exceptions for warrantless search and seizure (Katz v. U.S.). One of these exceptions is called “plain view.”

There's always a risk that when a Supreme Court decision discusses two or more major points, those points may get blurred. One familiar example is Terry v. Ohio, which is often cited as the opinion that gave us the "stop and frisk" rule.

Most traffic stops are routine. You see a moving or equipment violation, make the stop, and issue a citation or warning. Everything’s over in 10 minutes or so.

Most officers are aware of the general rule on entering a suspect's home to arrest him or to search for evidence. These actions must be supported by either valid consent or a recognized exigency.

Under what circumstances is it permissible to use a dog to try to detect the presence of narcotics or dangerous substances without prior suspicion? The Supreme Court has considered this issue in three decisions.

When you go into a suspect’s home to execute a search warrant, it’s not uncommon to find several people present, whether suspects, family members, or others. Sometimes, occupants may outnumber officers on the scene. This can create problems of safety and control, making it more difficult to carry out the search. Realizing this, the Supreme Court has provided guidelines on the ability of officers to detain, handcuff, and question occupants while a search takes place.

Some law enforcement activities are more likely than others to generate citizen complaints, tort claims, and lawsuits (use of deadly or serious force, for example). But even routine detentions, searches, and arrests also present civil liability risks. What can you do to reduce the chances of becoming a defendant in a lawsuit?

Obviously, no reasonable officer is going to risk his or her personal safety or the public safety in order to satisfy rules regulating the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial, or even to avoid personal civil liability.

In a motor vehicle, it may not always be clear who has authority to grant permission for a search.

Talk to Officer Don Gause, an eight-year veteran of the Myrtle Beach (S.C.) Police Department, and he'll tell you that a needle stick or accidental exposure to HIV, hepatitis, or any other bloodborne pathogen is absolutely his greatest fear.

As the number of tactical teams across the nation has increased for the past several years, the number of lawsuits being brought against tactical teams has also risen dramatically.