NCJ Number
50998
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 16 Issue: 1 Dated: (SUMMER 1978) Pages: 17-27
Date Published
1978
Length
11 pages
Annotation
A SAMPLE OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PROBLEMS PETITIONED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DURING ITS 1977-78 TERM ARE EXAMINED, WITH ATTENTION TO SELECTED SEARCH AND SEIZURE ISSUES.
Abstract
THE CASES SELECTED INVOLVE LOOKING BEYOND THE AFFIDAVIT TO TEST FOR TRUTHFULNESS IN SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATIONS, PARTICULAR EXCEPTIONS TO THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT, AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE PREVENTS FRUITS OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH FROM BEING USED AS EVIDENCE. IN GRANTING CERTIORARI IN 1977 TO FRANKS V. DELAWARE, THE SUPREME COURT INDICATED THE NEED FOR A DIRECT DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH A COURT MAY PERMIT AN ATTACK UPON THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WHERE THE WARRANT IS VALID ON ITS FACE AND THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE AFFIDAVIT, IF TRUE, ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE. WITH REGARD TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, THE COURT DEFINED THE SCOPE OF A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AS THAT AREA WITHIN THE ARRESTEE'S IMMEDIATE CONTROL. THE COURT DECIDED NOT TO GRANT CERTIORARI IN TWO INSTANCES WHERE LOWER COURTS FOUND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PERMIT WARRANTLESS SEARCHES BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ACTION IN ORDER TO PROTECT POLICE OR PRESERVE EVIDENCE. THE COURT IS EXPECTED TO REFUSE TO GRANT CERTIORARI ALSO IN SEVERAL CASES CONCERNING THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE WHICH HOLDS THAT EVIDENCE IN PLAIN VIEW MAY BE SEIZED BY POLICE WITHOUT A WARRANT IF THEY ARE LAWFULLY IN THE PLACE WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS SEEN, IF THE DISCOVERY IS INADVERTENT, AND IF THE ITEMS SEIZED ARE IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZABLE AS EVIDENCE. IN THE AREA OF LESS COMMON THEORIES OF WARRANT EXEMPTION (I.E., THE MURDER EXCEPTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES), THE COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI IN AN ARIZONA CASE THAT HELD THAT A REASONABLE, WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE SCENE OF A HOMICIDE OR OF A SERIOUS PERSONAL INJURY WITH LIKELIHOOD OF DEATH WHERE THERE IS REASON TO SUSPECT FOUL PLAY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WHERE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE LEGALLY ON THE PREMISES IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. THE COURT ALSO REAFFIRMED ITS LONGSTANDING VIEW THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES WARRANTS FOR ALL BUT A NARROW CLASS OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES. FINALLY, AS FOR THE FRUITS OF ILLEGAL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, THE COURT REVERSED A LOWER COURT RULING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHOSE IDENTIFICATION WAS DISCOVERED THROUGH AN ILLEGAL SEARCH IS ADMISSABLE IN A PROSECUTION FOR PREJURY AT A POSTSEARCH PROCEEDING. JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE FOOTNOTED AND DISCUSSED. (KBL)