The 4th Amendment

J

John/az2

New member
Something that has concerned me for a while (ever since the siezure of 80 guns at that groundkeepers house) is the wording of the 4th Amendment and it's interpretation by LEA's.

When it was brought up about the items siezed there was reference made by several members that once inside the house anything is fair game. If the language of the 4th is as plain as the 2nd, then this line of thought is wrong and needs to be fought.

According to the wording of the 4th Amendment not only does the residence need to be named specifically, but also the items looked for!

Now, in the groundskeepers case the SWAT team and the police were looking for stolen items from the school district. I don't believe that those 80 guns fall into that catagory by the furthest stretch of the imagination.

In its reading, it also sounds like you would need a search warrant to search an individual, as well.

Thoughts?


------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
If a law enforcement officer has a lawful reason to be where he/she is - a search warrant in this case - other items such as contraband or evidence of further crimes can be seized. There is a limitation. The officers cannot search containers where it is improbable the items listed in the search warrant can be found. It is known as the "Elephant in a matchbox doctrine." Example: The officers are searching for stolen televisions in the 19-27" screen size range. If an officer opens a small makeup case or shaving kit, something impossible to hide a television within, and he finds narcotics, then the narcotics seized would be suppressed as evidence.

However, most search warrants also allow officers to search for and seize evidence of ownership by the accused, such as telephone bills, utility bills, etc., to establish the accused has dominion and control over the premises. Since those documents can be found in small containers, officers pretty much have the authority to look where they please.

Hope this helps.



------------------
Bruce Stanton
CDR, USN-Ret.
Sgt., Kings Co. Sheriff - Ret.
 
Not a snipe at you bruels, just the concept -- "However, most search warrants also allow officers to search for and seize evidence of ownership by the accused, such as telephone bills, utility bills, etc., to establish the accused has dominion and control over the premises."

What's the matter with checking out the property tax lists, phone or power company records, etc. BEFORE the search to determine "evidence of ownership"?

------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
 
An apartment dweller or renter will not show up on property tax rolls. Checking phone or utility company records may require a separate warrant. I don't know. My last seven years in the department involved civil judgment enforcement and I never really was comfortable about writing up search warrant affidavits and warrants.

Your question raises an interesting point. Is the request to search for documents merely a ruse to look into every nook and cranny? I have not heard of any challenges on this ground. It would be interesting to see what would happen if some defense attorney challenged the warrant in that there are other less intrusive ways to prove if the defendant owns or has dominion and control over the premises.
 
One of the problems is that over the years we have seen "authority creep". So much of what we are talking about is the result of denying rights of individuals in order to make law enforcement easier and safer.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
It is always tempting for a lawyer to jump into a thread like this and attempt to give some helpful observations. But it is VERY difficult to summarize the law of search and seizure in anything approaching a nut shell without oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy.

But there is a source of information on the net free to all sponsored by the Cornell Law School. It has not all, but all recent, Supreme Court decisions, and an effective key word search tool.

A reference of possible interest to this board is U.S. v. Ramirez which involved the execution of a "no knock" warrant on someone alleged to be in illegal possession of firearms. The reference to the case at Cornell's site is http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1469.ZS.html

The Supreme Court's syllabus (or summary) of the case follows:

UNITED STATES, Petitioner,
v.
Hernan RAMIREZ.

No. 96-1469.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Jan. 13, 1998.
Decided March 4, 1998.

Defendant indicted for being felon in possession of firearms moved to suppress evidence regarding possession of weapons. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Ancer L. Haggerty, J., granted motion. Government appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Fernandez, Circuit Judge, 91 F.3d 1297, affirmed. Government petitioned for writ of certiorari, which was granted. The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that:

(1) Fourth Amendment does not hold officers to higher standard than that applicable to "no-knock" entries when "no-knock" entry results in destruction of property;

(2) officers executing search warrant did not violate Fourth Amendment when they broke garage window during course of "no-knock" entry into defendant's residence;

(3) officers executing warrant did not violate statute authorizing officer to damage property in executing search warrant under certain circumstances; and

(4) statute authorizing officer to damage property in executing search warrant under certain circumstances includes exigent circumstances exception.

Reversed and remanded.


Happy reading.
 
The only search warrant I have ever seen had so many weasel words about what they were looking for that they could have searched anywhere and seized anything. Bags of junk silver and sterling silver disappeared during the search never to be seen again.

------------------
Byron Quick
 
A law passed by Congress may be un-Constitutional, but until it is challenged in Federal Court, it is the law.

Last I heard, it takes over $100,000 to get through the system to the Supreme Court, stipulating they will deign to hear the case.

Poor folks might be able to get there on your tax dollars, with help from the ACLU. Rich folks can afford it. "Just folks" of the middle-class are just slam out of luck...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top