Search and Seizure, Research Paper Example

Searches and seizures are legal requirements in the criminal and civil law procedures whereby the law enforcing authorities and agents upon suspicion that a crime has been committed carry out a search on one’s properties and thus confiscate any information relevant to the crime under investigation. According to the United States Constitution the law is intended to protect the individuals from unreasonable search and seizure (Toobin, 2008). The Constitution entitles all citizens with reasonable right to privacy and this must be adhered to by all law enforcers in the state. Before carrying out any search and seizure for any suspected, evidence by the law enforcement agents to obtain a search warrant before carrying out any search and seizure on any person’s property is required. Any search and seizure intended to be carried out shall not be subject to violation and warrants shall not be issued unreasonably unless with probable cause with the support of an oath or affirmation describing clearly the place required to be searched, time of search, people to searched or things to be seized.

In this case of William Ellis, it is quit evident that the police relied on the mere allegations given out by Mrs. Stevens the wife to the deceased to make an opinion of searching William’s bedroom. The scene of crime investigators did not at any point obtain a search warrant before entering the room belonging to William Ellis when he was not present or even contact his mother Mary Ellis before conducting the search. Therefore the evidence claimed to have been extracted from William’s room cannot at any legal level be regarded as admissible and it extremely violated the privacy right of the accused. Such mere allegation of Mrs. Stevens against William Ellis unannounced entering into Steven’s townhouse in several occasion and attempt to rape her then would have been supported by the previous records over such claims. Not after when another offence has been committed is when she comes out to say the William Ellis had attempted to get her on her bedroom.

The court should take into consideration that also the warrant of arrest was not valid and the evidence presented against William does amount to connect him to crime committed. Again William Ellis did not give consent voluntarily to the scene of crime investigators before carrying out the search and seizure in his bedroom. Legally before the search could have been conducted the scene of crime investigators may have first obtained an affirmation and consent of the accused. The search would have also been carried out with the presence of the accused or the defendant. The search is then regarded to be obtained illegally and therefore it should be excluded and cannot be required to be used against the defendant at trial. The police officers did not enter to William’s house with the plain view but with the unsubstantiable matters raised by Stevens’ wife. The previous movement of Steven before he could be murdered was not taken into consideration if anyone may have obtained the knife normally used by William without his knowledge when committing the crime. It was not reasonable beyond the level of doubt that the police officers had enough grounds to search the house without the owner’s consent and getting the valid search warrant at the first place. There reason was not probable and nothing necessitated to go very first to get fingerprint from the light switch.

The law enforcement officers violated William’s constitutional right to privacy and therefore any evidence derived from the search and seizure carried out in his house when he was absent and without his own consent should be kept out from the criminal case against him. For instance, where a court case it is found that a police search violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the constitution because of unsupported probable cause on the home of the owner, any evidence extracted may not be use for as evidence against the case and the arrest made is considered to be unlawful. If the police in this case believed that there was a probable reason to find evidence in William’s house in relation to the crime committed then they would have also followed the law before carrying out the search.

A good example in relation to this case is the criminal case where Officer Wiley arrested one suspect Lowe who was allegedly found to have been selling false telephone cards. The court judge ruled that the officer illegally traced and entered Lowe’s house and illegally seized a map that traced him to where Lowe had hidden the phone cards. Even though Officer Wiley found the phone cards in the led location, the map was found to be obtained illegally and hence the search was declared to be illegal. The finding of the phony phone cards which is considered to an offence are regarded to be as a result of that unlawful search and therefore the evidence presented was found to be inadmissible before the court (Diane, 2007).

There are instances where the rule of obtaining the search warrant may optional before conducting the search and seizure. For example, when the owner of the house is present and voluntarily consents to the police officer upon request, the search and seizure may be regarded as legal. In some cases for instances restaurant management, the third party mandated to be in charge of the property intended to be search may also give the consent. But the after the consent has been given, the owner of the property or the third party in charge must be present and observing as the search is conducted. For the case of William Ellis who was not present at the time of doing the search, his mother who he share the house with was present and before the search was to be conducted she would have been ask to consent first. Nobody was present from the defendant party when the scenes of crime investigators were seizing the house. Therefore, the case gives out clear evidence that there was a great violation of the constitutional rights of the defendants.

For the case of William Ellis, the search was not justifiable and the seized evidence may not connect the defendant to the crime that was committed. The court is not expected to allow the prosecution to continue using the search and seize evidence gathered from William Ellis’ house that was illegally searched. Mrs Ellis was the first to know about the death of Steven and immediately called the police. And since they were neighbors she had every reason to get worried the reason why she was quite distraught. Her evidence to the prosecution should be of great importance being the first person to arrive at the scene of crime. She would have first confirmed whether the knife used for investigations was the one she first saw on the man (Diane, 2007).

The exclusionary rule

In the criminal prosecution if the court finds out that an unreasonable search was conducted and any evidence was seized resulting from the search could not be used as admissible evidence against the accused person. However, being established in 1961 by the U.S. Supreme Court the rule has been embraced to the present as the “exclusionary rule” (Retrived from criminal-law-30183.html.).

A lot of criticism has been forwarded that exclusionary rule is unfair because it sets the criminals free just because of the search and seizure are considered to be illegal. This will limit police officers from conducting searches and seize evidence if the evidence found could not be used to achieve a conviction of the defendant (Greenburg, 2007).

The fruit of the poisonous tree

Under the legal rule that has come to be known as the “fruit of the poisonous” evidence used against the defendant, the evidence that was resulted from the illegal search and seizure may not under any reasonable used to reveal other evidences. This is like arresting a person to lead to the arrest to the other person believed to have committed the offence. The first arrest leading to the other is very much illegal and unconstitutional to one’s rights. The “tree” is considered to be that evidence which the police officers obtained from the illegal search and seizure at the first point and the “fruit” is the emerging product from the illegal seized evidence.

References

Diane, S. S., (2007). “Of a Judiciary Nature”: Observations on Chief Justice Roberts’s First Opinions, 34 Pepp. L. Rev. 1027.

Greenburg, C., (2007). Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of Struggle for Control of US Supreme Court. N Y: Penguin Press

Toobin, J., (2008). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of Supreme Court. N Y: Doubleday.