광주흥신소Criminal Suspect Search
Criminal suspects must be searched after their arrest to obtain identification information and evidence. Police have special rules when searching a person and the area immediately around them.
They may search without a warrant when it’s in their interest to do so, for example to prevent the destruction of evidence. They may also conduct a protective or pat-down search with the voluntarily-given consent of an adult.
Search Incident to Arrest
Law enforcement officers often perform searches without a warrant when they suspect that a person is in possession of illegal drugs, weapons or evidence related to the criminal behavior that led to their detention. When an officer has probable cause to arrest a person for a crime, the Fourth Amendment allows them to search that person and their immediate area. This exception to the warrant requirement was established in Chimel v. California, and expanded to include vehicle searches in Belton v. United States. Whether or not this search is reasonable depends on the circumstances and how close it was to the actual arrest.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a search incident to a lawful arrest is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe that the person has committed the crime for which they are arrested, and it is within their power to proceed with the arrest. However, the Supreme Court also recognizes that a search may be unreasonable if it violates a defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
With the growth of technology that enables many people to store and transmit large amounts of information, the courts have struggled with how to balance this privacy concern against the needs of police. The Supreme Court has held that a warrantless search of a person or their property is per se unreasonable unless one of the few specifically defined and well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.
When police officers are effecting a lawful arrest inside a residence or other type of premises, they may conduct a protective sweep to protect their safety and the safety of others on the scene. This is an exception to the warrant requirement and it allows police to look in areas where a person could be hiding. However, in order to conduct a protected sweep, police must have articulable, reasonable suspicion that someone who could pose a danger is located on the premises.
For example, in US v. Vargas, 376 F.3d 112 (2 Cir 2004), DEA agents approached the defendant in his motel room. They did not frisk him and did not arouse any special fear for their safety, but they noticed an open bathroom door and swept the room. They found heroin in the bathtub. The lower court and the Circuit Court suppressed this evidence because the agents did not have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was in that room, or that he would try to interfere with the arrest, or that he would threaten officers’ safety.
A full sweep of a house or other structure can only take place when there is a lawful reason to search for weapons that could harm the officer. If you were arrested outside of your home and the officers searched inside without any reasonable suspicion, you could challenge their action.
If police believe that a suspect has committed a crime and might hide evidence on the property, they must convince a judge or magistrate to authorize a search. They must present an affidavit detailing their impressions and any information they have received from trusted sources. If the judge or magistrate is persuaded by this affidavit, they will grant the search warrant.
The search warrant will name a specific location where law enforcement can search and will also specify the type of evidence they are seeking. However, the search is not limited to the areas named in the document. If agents find illegal items or incriminating evidence that are not specified in the warrant during the course of executing a search, they can still seize it.
It is possible that a suspect may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place or things they own, and therefore, a warrant is not required. The Supreme Court of the United States has established a two-part test for determining whether a person has such an expectation of privacy.
Additionally, a search may be conducted without a warrant if police arrest an individual and reasonably believe that he or she has dangerous accomplices who might attempt to destroy or conceal evidence after his or her arrest. This type of search is called a search incident to an arrest and involves a cursory visual inspection of closets, basements, under beds and other places where a suspected offender might be hiding.
While the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable “searches,” not all searches are considered seizures under this provision. To be considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a police action must have some element of actual control or custody over the target arrestee. It is also important to note that the definition of seizure varies from state to state, and even though the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law is binding, it is not the only source of legal authority.
A common example of a search without a warrant is when the police follow a fleeing suspect into their home. In this situation, they may be permitted to search the house based on the “hot pursuit” exception, which allows police to enter private property in hot pursuit of a criminal suspect so long as there is reasonable suspicion that evidence is in danger of being removed or destroyed. This is why it is so important to always lock doors when leaving your home.
Another exception to the warrant requirement is when a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person’s actions or appearances match criminal profiles. This justifies brief stops and detentions during which the officer can assess whether a crime is being committed. During these stops and detentions, officers are allowed to use the information they obtain to develop probable cause for arrest.