You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 3 (753 words)
The Fourth Amendment of the federal laws governs criminal procedure that starts from seeking of warrants of searches, seizures, and arrest up to the judicial processes. This paper seeks to discuss legal issues in criminal procedure through exploring a case study.
The authorities must convince the courts that the informant is reliable. Another necessity for issuance of a warrant is the informant’s rationale that has led to conclusion that the suspect is about to commit a crime or is in the process of committing a crime. In the case, Suzan informs the police in California that two suspects are about to transport heroin. The police then inform their counterparts in Chicago. The basis for a warrant by the Chicago police therefore meets the essentials for a warrant. The source, being a police force is trusted for truth and reliability and therefore forms a basis for issuance of a warrant (Carmen, 2009).
The fourth amendment defines a search as a substantive breach of personal right of privacy. Further, application of technology to advance police activities with respect to search have been considered as searches. This was held in the case of Kyllo v United States. Use of police dog for detection is also considered as a search unless the dog sniffs from a far distance. The use of a police dog can therefore be considered as a technological act to constitute a search (Carmen, 2009; Meeker, 2004).
The general rule is that searches are supposed to be made after a warrant has been issued by a court. There are, however, exemptions to this rule and the police can legally search a personal vehicle without a warrant. Such exemptions include “searches with consent, special need beyond law, exigent circumstances, stop and frisk and motor vehicle” searches (Carmen, 2009, 204). All these exemptions allow the police to make a legal search on Tom’s vehicle. There was for example an initial consent, by the suspects, for the search. Further, the actual detection of a suspicious material in the car trunk was an instant event. The police can also argue that it was a stop and frisk exercise since the car driver behaved suspiciously in a deserted area. The law also allows the police to make ...
Not exactly what you need?