Advanced Legal Principles of Residential Searches and Evidence Collection and Evidence Admissible Evidence and Searches

Welcome and Course Incentives

  • The lecturer introduces the final session regarding searches of residences.
  • Students are encouraged to watch the provided video and leave a comment to earn an incentive of 55 points.

Fundamental Legal Bases for Residential Searches

  • There are three primary circumstances under which law enforcement can legally search a residence without violating the Fourth Amendment:
    • Consent: Permission granted by an individual with legal standing.
    • Exigency and Emergency: Situations requiring immediate action to prevent harm or the disappearance of evidence.
    • Search Warrant: A court-authorized document obtained when consent or exigency is not present.

Criteria for Consent Searches

  • For a consent search to be valid, specific conditions must be met:
    • The person providing consent must be an adult.
    • The person must have "standing," meaning they have control over the residence.
    • The individual must knowingly understand why the officers are there.
    • The consent must be voluntary and cannot be the result of coercion.

The Three Types of Exigencies and Emergencies

  • The court recognizes three distinct categories that qualify as an emergency exception to the warrant requirement:
    1. Life-saving: Officers may enter if they see someone inside who needs immediate medical help or is in danger.
    2. Prevention of Destruction of Evidence: If officers observe someone attempting to destroy evidence (e.g., seeing a suspect running down a hall to flush narcotics down a toilet), they may enter forcibly.
    3. Hot Pursuit: If officers are pursuing a suspect after a crime (e.g., a robbery) and the suspect flees into a house, officers may chase them directly into the residence.

Case Study: Mincey v. Arizona

  • Incident Overview:
    • An undercover narcotics team was conducting a "buy-bust" operation.
    • An officer moved into a back bedroom to finalize a deal when a shootout occurred.
    • The officer was fatally wounded and died inside the apartment.
    • The suspect, Mr. Mincey, and other individuals were also shot and wounded.
  • Search Process:
    • Police cleared the residence and transported all injured parties to the hospital.
    • Mr. Mincey was placed in custody and treated at the hospital while being interviewed by detectives.
    • A homicide team arrived and conducted an exhaustive search of the residence that lasted for four days.
  • Legal Challenges:
    • Mr. Mincey contested that the four-day search for evidence of the shooting and narcotics sales was inadmissible as it violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
    • The court ruled that the exigency ended once the injured parties were removed and the suspect was in custody.
    • The house was considered "stationary," meaning officers could have secured the scene with police tape and waited for a search warrant without risk of evidence destruction or suspect flight.
  • Arizona State Supreme Court vs. US Supreme Court:
    • The Arizona State Supreme Court had attempted to establish a "murder scene exception," suggesting a warrant was not needed for such heinous crimes.
    • The United States Supreme Court overturned this, ruling the state's exception unconstitutional.
    • The Supreme Court affirmed that the Fourth Amendment protections apply to everyone nationwide and cannot be bypassed by state-level rules.
  • Outcome:
    • A large portion of the evidence collected during the four days was ruled inadmissible because officers failed to get a warrant.
    • However, evidence found in "plain view" during the initial legal entry was preserved, and Mr. Mincey was ultimately convicted.

The Plain View Doctrine

  • The Plain View Doctrine allows officers to seize evidence without a warrant if three specific aspects are satisfied:
    1. Lawful Vantage Point: The officer must be in a place where they have a legal right to be (e.g., a public alley, a sidewalk, or inside a home with consent/warrant).
    2. Probable Cause: The officer must have immediate probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or contraband.
    3. Lawful Access: The officer must have a legal right to access the physical location of the item to retrieve it.
  • Practical Examples:
    • An officer walking in a public alley observes marijuana plants through a gap in a wooden fence (lawful vantage point).
    • If the officer sees something that is "obviously evidence to a crime," they have probable cause.
    • If the suspect attempts to destroy the evidence upon seeing the officer, an exigency is created, allowing for lawful access.
  • Limitations and Exceptions:
    • If an officer is in a residence illegally (e.g., moving from a porch arrest to an unauthorized indoor search), anything seen in plain view remains inadmissible.
    • If an officer sees items that might be stolen (e.g., a stack of car stereos or jewelry) but cannot immediately identify them as such, they may need an additional search warrant to investigate further.

Protective Sweeps

  • Definition: A protective sweep is a quick, limited warrantless search of a residence conducted for the safety of officers and others on the scene.
  • Requirements for a Lawful Protective Sweep:
    • Lawful Entry: Officers must already have a legal right to be in the residence.
    • Belief of Person on Premises: Officers must believe there is a person present in the areas being swept.
    • Danger to Officers: Officers must reasonably believe that the person poses a physical threat.
  • Prohibition of "Routine" Policy:
    • Departments cannot create a standard policy to sweep every house as a matter of routine.
    • Consistent with Terry v. Ohio, searches must be based on specific, articulable facts rather than blanket department procedures.

Practical Scenarios for Protective Sweeps

  • Search Warrants: During the execution of a search warrant, officers have the right to sweep the residence to ensure no one is hiding who could pose a danger.
  • Domestic Violence Calls:
    • Scenario A: A victim at the door is injured and evasive, claiming the suspect has left, but a car is still in the driveway. Officers may enter for a protective sweep to ensure the suspect is not hiding behind a door or posing an ongoing threat to the victim.
    • Scenario B: Officers enter to speak with both parties. They may look into open doorways to ensure their own safety during the investigation.
    • Limitation: If there is no evidence or sound (e.g., commotion or yelling from upstairs) suggesting a third party is present, officers cannot simply wander through the entire house (e.g., going to a second floor without cause).

Summary of Search Principles

  • Police work involves the constant overlapping of multiple legal concepts, including Plain View, protective sweeps, pat downs, and consensual encounters.
  • Once an emergency or exigency stops, law enforcement must obtain consent or a search warrant to continue searching.
  • Effective officers must be able to articulate their reasoning for searches on the witness stand to ensure evidence is admissible before a jury.