Warrantless Searches

[saevel25]

The 4th amendment,

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, ^[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ^[2]

Situation,

Quote:

Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding. When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, petitioner came to the door and objected. Suspecting that he had assaulted Rojas, the officers removed petitioner from the apartment and placed him under arrest. He was then identified as the perpetrator in the earlier robbery and taken to the police station. An officer later returned to the apartment and, after obtaining Rojas’ oral and written consent, searched the premises, where he found several items linking petitioner to the robbery.

The petitioner to the court wanted the evidence found to be dismissed under an illegal search of the property with out a warrant.

Background,

Previous court rulings have affirmed that if at least one occupant of the property is present who denies access to the property then the police needs a warrant.

Still an interesting situation is when a person is at the premise but does not live their. As long as the police can reasonably believe the person was living their that person can grant them consent to search.

The Supreme Court held that since the suspect was no longer at the residence, they could return and ask again for access by the female who was staying there. Since previous court rulings have stated that a person must be present at the property to deny the police access when ask for.

I believe this brings up a tough situation. How long does denying access to the property last? Does it last till he leaves the property? Does it last till he grants access or the police get enough evidence to get a warrant or have reasonable evidence to do a search? Does this give the police to much power in that they can basically hold the person, I believe in most instances up to 24 hours, and then proceed to just ask another resident for access?

For me, I would rule against the lower courts ruling.

If you have enough evidence to charge him with robbery, then you have enough evidence to get a warrant in my opinion.

I see it as two situations. First, the guy committed a robbery. Second, the guy committed domestic abuse.

I do not believe arresting him for domestic abuse nullifies him denying them access to the property since they are different crimes.

I believe the constitution should be upheld no matter what the instances. As such, with out further evidence that he committed a robbery they police had no probably cause to enter the premise. As such his original refusal of them to enter the property should still stand even though he was physically removed from the premise by the police.

In this cases a person did come forward to identify him as part of the robbery, as such the police now have enough evidence to be granted a warrant. In the end they circumvented the 4th amendment for convenience, which should not be done.

To me probable cause is a situation in which the police need to make a judgement call for an expedient situation. In this situation the suspect was in holding, they have a witness and they could go to a judge to get a warrant. This to me violates the premise of the 4th amendment.

Also, I do not like how the Supreme Court basically gives police a loop hole to detain people then go back and be granted access by another resident.