skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 137040 Find in a Library
Title: Searches and Seizures of Buildings and Property
Author(s): W Jeronimus; J A Lavoie; R A Stanich
Corporate Author: Minnesota Office of the Attorney General
United States of America

Minnesota Cty Attorneys Assoc
United States of America
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 50
Sponsoring Agency: Minnesota Cty Attorneys Assoc
St Paul, MN 55104
Minnesota Office of the Attorney General
St Paul, MN 55155
Type: Legislation/Policy Description
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This report discusses the United States Supreme Court decisions and other judicial decisions that regulate the authorization of residential searches or seizures in Minnesota.
Abstract: In general, a search or seizure in a residence requires a warrant. Minnesota law regulates search warrants; State and Federal constitutional law limit the State's statutory scheme. Issues that must be considered include probable cause, the requirements for search warrants based on an informant's tip, and the exclusionary rule. For warrantless searches, understanding of the definition of the curtilage of a residence, the requirements for consent searches, exigent circumstances for nonconsensual entries and searches, searches incident to arrest, searches for children in danger, and the plain view doctrine is crucial. However, obtaining a warrant is always the safest course of action, because courts have always been more likely to uphold police action that has prior judicial authorization, even if the warrant is held to be defective. If a warrant cannot be obtained due to time constraints, the next safest course is to proceed by consent. The exceptions to the warrant requirement for residences should be used only as a last resort, when the exigency is great, and the offense is not minor. List of cases
Main Term(s): Search and seizure laws
Index Term(s): Investigative powers; Minnesota; Police legal limitations; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=137040

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.