Most people believe that the police need a warrant to collect anything anywhere. But as long as the police officer has proable cause or a suspect gives consent to get a possible piece of evidence; they can collect anything. Another case is when there is an obvious, severe action being done.
Otherwise, the police must always get a warrant from a judge to search or collect anything.
When a police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is carrying or in posession of something, that person and his property can be searched. Reasonable grounds is defined as a set of facts or circumstances that would cause an ordinary, cautious, and prudent person to believe that an offence has occured. This belief must extend beyond mere suspicion. Example...I am a police officer that has stopped you for speeding. Upon approaching your vehicle, I smell marijuana smoke and see a haze of smoke in your car. This gives me reasonable grounds to suspect that there is marijuana somewhere in the immediate area, or your person, or in your vehicle. Thus, I have the lawful authority to search you, your car, your bags, etc until I am satisfied that there is or is not a controlled substance in your posession.
Answer:This answer is specific to US Constitutional Law: Actually, the example of an officer smelling maijuana smoke at a traffic stop is "Probable Cause," that is he has seen (or in this case smelled) evidence that a crime has taken place. "Reasonable Suspicion" is the expectation that a crime has been commited without the clear existence of evidence. For instance, if the driver of the vehicle were to be sitting on his hands when the officer came up to the window, this could represent reasonable susicion that the driver was attempting to hide something, giving the officer authority to exit the driver from the vehicle and conduct a visual search. Note that during a visual search, the officer may not move any items to look under them; anything discovered must be in plain sight and not obscured. If he observed anything during the visual search, this would give him probable cause to conduct a more thorough search, which might lead to an arrest. The confusion that occurs in the differences between Probable Cause and Resonable Suspicion are not unique to civilians. Many law enforcement officers are unfamiliar, innocently or purposefully, to what constitutes legal search and detention.
In actuallity, the traffic stop itself give the officer authority to conduct a visual search on grounds of reasonable suspicion, and most do as they approach your vehicle. You will notice how they bend over to speak to you that their eyes scan the interior--this is the inspection. This is also the reason that heavy window tinting is illegal in most cities and states of the US.
If the police are in the home legally, and the drugs are in plain view, then yes, the police may seize the drugs and arrest the homeowner for possession of the drugs. However, in my opinion, the officer would be better off obtaining a search warrant, although it is not required.
The fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects your rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It mandates that all Police and Government officials need provide an authorized search warrant to enter privet property to search or seize items of an investigation. It also requires that search warrants be issued only on basis of oath or affirmation assuring the courts there was enough evidence to issue such a warrant.
They obtain a warrant and confiscate it.
conclusion-------------------------My answerThe fourth part of the declaration announces that the colonies are free. It says that they have the right to be free. The declaration calls the colonies " free and independent states."
j'ai seize ans means 'I'm sixteen' in French.
A Search Warrant
Yes. It is usually referred to as 'plain view.'
No they can't. If they try to use it in court it would be immiscible.
It may depend on the circumstances but as a GENERAL RULE they may seize evidence or contraband that is in plain view.
Yes and no. If the Police have a search warrant or your consent, they may search you. If they have neither and you're not under arrest, then no. This would be a 4th amendment violation and any evidence obtained through the illegal search would be suppressed. They may only search you incident to arrest, which means after they've verbally informed you that you're under arrest.
Under most circumstances, no. The police usually need a warrant to search your house, car, property, etc. However, there are some cases in which the rule can be bent. If you are being arrested, the police may search you and your property for weapons or other accomplices for their own safety. If the police already have permission to be on your property, and they see some form of evidence that is clearly visible, they have the right to lawfully seize it. If the person who is in control of the property gives consent to the police, they may search it.
Absolutely not. They can only confiscate the types of items outlined in the search warrant, as long as nothing else criminally possessed was found while searching the house.
A general warrant, whereby and officer may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize persons not names, or whose offense is not suppoted by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not be granted.
If police are in possession of evidentiary iterms (i.e. secured via search warrant) and they then want to have one or more evidentiary items sent to the lab for testing, the police need to secure what's called a Joyce warrant for the latter seizure/testing. E.g. police seize bloody pants at a crime scene via search warrant. Police now want to send bloody pants to lab for biological testing. Police get Joyce warrant which permitts the testing on the already seized item. Hope that helps
It is important to seize every opportunity that comes your way. The police officers will seize the stolen property. As a result of the lawsuit, he is able to seize your assets. With a search warrent, the officers are able to seize evidence from the scene.
A search warrant allows police to search for property and seize specific property, at a specific time, for a specific reason; In Canada a "General Warrant" allows the police to use a particular technique or method, (that without Judicial authority would be considered a breach of the persons rights) to obtain information relating to an offense. An example of a General Warrant would be: Authorization for the police to conduct a perimeter search of a property to look for signs of say a marijuana grow operation (condensation, smell etc) These observations can not be physically seized (They are observations and not property) and therefore a search warrant is not applicable.
Under what is called "exigent circumstances" such as officer safety. An example would be if the police chased someone into a house and arrested him in the living room. They could search the living room (but not the kitchen) for weapons.