NCJ Number
53653
Date Published
1978
Length
42 pages
Annotation
JUDICIAL DECISIONS BEARING UPON SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEDURES AND THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE ARE DISCUSSED, FOLLOWED BY CONSIDERATION OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS AFFECTING FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR STATE INMATES.
Abstract
UNLIKE ARRESTS, MOST SEARCHES WITHOUT WARRANTS HAVE LONG BEEN HELD UNREASONABLE PER SE. HOWEVER, EXCEPTIONS TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, HAVE EVOLVED. SEARCHES INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARRESTS, SEARCHES MADE IN HOT PURSUIT OF SUSPECTS, VISUAL SEARCHES OF OBJECTS IN PLAIN VIEW, SEARCHES TO WHICH CONSENT HAS BEEN GIVEN, AND SEARCHES IN WHICH EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE OBTAINING A WARRANT IMPRACTICABLE HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED WITHOUT A WARRANT. SEARCHES OF AUTOMOBILES HAVE BEEN UPHELD UNDER A NUMBER OF THE PRECEDING JUSTIFICATIONS. PROPERLY IMPOUNDED AUTOMOBILES MAY ALSO BE SEARCHED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES, WITHOUT A WARRANT. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT ENGLISH AND AMERICAN COMMON LAW, AS WELL AS SEVERAL CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES PERMIT WARRANTLESS FELONY ARRESTS IN PUBLIC PLACES, BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH WARRANTLESS ARRESTS MAY BE MADE IN THE PRIVACY OF A PERSON'S HOME REMAINS UNCLEAR. SEVERAL SUPREME COURT RULINGS INDICATE IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE (PROHIBITS ADMITTING EVIDENCE OBTAINED ILLEGALLY) WILL BE EXPANDED BEYOND ITS SPECIFIC APPLICATION IN THE MAPP DECISION. THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISIONS IN FRANCIS, ESTELLE, AND STONE LIMIT A STATE INMATE'S USE OF HABEAS CORPUS IN A FEDERAL COURT, ACCORDING TO A FEDERAL COURT'S PERCEPTION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN QUESTION. ALTHOUGH A 'FUNDAMENTAL' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, MAY BE REVIEWED FULLY IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS, A FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM UNDER STONE V. POWELL MAY GET ONLY ONE LEVEL OF FULL AND FAIR REVIEW, IN A STATE OR FEDERAL COURT. AN OBJECTION AFTER CONVICTION TO WEARING PRISON CLOTHES AT TRIAL (ESTELLE), OR TO A DISCRIMINATORY GRAND JURY (FRANCIS) ARE SO UNIMPORTANT IN THE COURT'S VIEW THAT A DEFENDANT'S UNINTENTIONAL WAIVER OF HIS CLAIM MAY BAR ALL STATE AND FEDERAL REVIEW. THESE CASES FORESHADOW A NEW CONCEPTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS DEVELOPING IN THE COURT. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)