1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
A hunt incident to lawful apprehension does non necessitate issue of a warrant. In other words. if person is legitimately arrested. the constabulary may seek her individual and any country environing the individual that is within range ( within his or her “wingspan” ) . See Chimel v. California. 395 U. S. 752 ( 1969 )
Example: John is arrested for driving while intoxicated after being pulled over for running a ruddy visible radiation. A hunt of his auto reveals 8 bags of diacetylmorphine in the baseball mitt compartment and an illegal pistol in the bole. The diacetylmorphine is admissible grounds for which no warrant was required as the baseball mitt compartment is surely within John’s wingspread. The gun found in the bole. nevertheless. was non within his wingspread. and was the consequence of an unreasonable hunt. This grounds will be excluded.
2. Complain View Exception
No warrant is required to prehend grounds in field position if the constabulary are lawfully in the location from which the grounds can be viewed.
Example: an officer can non illicitly come in a suspect’s back yard and so utilize the field position exclusion to prehend an illicitly unbroken alligator life in the pool. But. if on the premises to function a warrant duly issued to seek for marihuana workss. the alligator. if in field position. can justly ( though by no agencies easy ) be seized.
If consent is given by a individual moderately believed by an officer to hold authorization to give such consent. no warrant is required for a hunt or ictus. So. if a suspect’s “significant other” provides constabulary with a key to the suspect’s flat. and constabularies moderately believe that she lives at that place. the hunt will non go against suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights even if she did non populate at that place and even if she. in fact. lacked authorization to consent. . See Illinois v. Rodriguez. 497 U. S. 177 ( 1990 ) .
Example: Officer Warren knocks on a slaying suspect’s door. the door is answered by the suspect’s 6 twelvemonth old kid. Timmy. The officer asks Timmy “Is it okay if I come in and speak to your Dad? He’s anticipating me. ” And so walks into the flat. He so sees the suspect. Roland. sitting on the couch oiling his illegal Tommy-gun. the suspected slaying arm. He arrests Roland for ownership of the gun and seizes the grounds. Because Timmy. being a little kid. was non lawfully able or authorized to give consent. the entry was illegal and the grounds will be excluded.
4. Stop & A ; Frisk
Police may halt a suspect so long as there is a sensible intuition of a condemnable act. The grounds necessary for “reasonable suspicion” here is something beyond mere intuition. but is less than the degree required for likely cause. If there is ground to believe that the individual may be armed and unsafe. the constabulary can besides frolic the suspect. See Terry v. Ohio. 392 U. S. 1 ( 1968 ) .
Example: Officer P. Harker’s equals frequently joke that he has something kindred to a “spidey-sense” which tells him when folks are up to no good. While basking a cup of java at his favourite doughnut store. Officer Harker’s cervix hairs stand up directly. He instantly goes outside where he sees Ivan walking down the street. transporting a little duffle bag bag. He orders Ivan to halt and drop the bag. When the bag falls. Officer Harker hears the clanging of metal against metal. He so frisks Ivan and discovers a concealed handgun in Ivan’s pocket. He so searches the duffle bag bag and discovers ammo and several illegal runing knives. Despite the fact that Officer Harker’s “spidey-sense” proved accurate one time once more. the grounds will be excluded as he can non joint any ground why he stopped Ivan. other than his remarkably active cervix hairs.