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: 62787 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: SEARCH AND SEIZURE - INTERPRETATIVE ANALYSIS
Author(s): F J LUDWIG
Corporate Author: Police College
United Kingdom
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 22
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
Police College
Basingstoke, Hampshire, England
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
Annotation: NEW YORK'S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, BASED ON THE 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS (SEARCH AND SEIZURE) TO THE CONSTITUTION, IS ANALYZED BY AN EXPERIENCED PROSECUTOR.
Abstract: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS PEOPLE AND THEIR PROPERTY AGAINST SEARCH AND SEIZURE EXCEPT FOR PROBABLE CAUSE AND REQUIRES A DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES TO BE SEARCHED OR ITEMS TO BE SEIZED. THE 14TH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THIS PROTECTION FOR ALL CITIZENS. IN RAPE, PROOF IS PROBATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT'S OR SUSPECT'S GUILT IF IT ESTABLISHES A LACK OF CONSENT OR FORCE AGAINST COMPLAINANT, PENETRATION, AND THE DEFENDANT'S IDENTITY AS THE PERPETRATOR. HOWEVER, IF PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED INCORRECTLY, VALUABLE EVIDENCE MAY BE EXCLUDED. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO KNOW HOW FAR POLICE MAY SEARCH, WHEN SEARCH WARRANTS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE A SEARCH, AND WHAT PRESENTATION ASSURES A WARRANT'S VALIDITY. IN DAVIS V. MISSISSIPPI AND PEOPLE V. MORALES, CONVICTIONS WERE REMANDED OR OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE EVIDENCE FOR ARREST DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANTS AS PERPETRATORS. POLICE LACKING PROBABLE CAUSE EVIDENCE FOR ARREST MAY HAVE A GRAND JURY SUBOPENA SUSPECTS FOR QUESTIONING, OBTAIN SUSPECTS' CONSENT TO SEARCH FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE, OR QUESTION THEM WITHOUT ARREST. WHEN SUSPECTS ARE ARRESTED WITH PROBABLE CAUSE, THEY MAY BE SEARCHED FOR A WEAPON, CONTRABAND, OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE AIDING THEIR CONVICTION; A LIMITED SEARCH OF THEIR PREMISES IS ALSO PERMITTED. A MORE EXTENSIVE SEARCH OF THEIR PREMISES, AUTOMOBILES, OR OTHER PLACES REQUIRES A WARRANT. IN COOLIDGE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, A MURDERER'S CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED BECAUSE EVIDENCE USED AGAINST HIM WAS NOT OBTAINED WITH A WARRANT. HOWEVER, A VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH MAY BE MADE WITH THE CONSENT OF THIRD PARTIES OCCUPYING THE PREMISES WITH THE ARRESTED PERSON. DISCUSSION AND MANY CASE CITATIONS ARE INCLUDED. (PAP)
Index Term(s): Arrest warrants; Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Judicial decisions; Laws and Statutes; New York; Search and seizure; Search and seizure laws
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=62787

*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.