Legal issue...

[jmcoreymv]

Im having a government test tomorrow. And Im trying to understand the rules to illegal search and seizure. Basically here is the scenario im wondering about:

Police suspect a person has meth in their home and they get a warrant to search the house. While performing the search they find nuclear weapons (theoretical), are they allowed to charge the person for possession of the weapons?

My intuition says yes because it poses a threat to society but im not positive how to state it. However I know in the case Mapp V Ohio, a house was searched for illegal gambling activities, and they found obscene materials in the process. They charged the lady for obscene materials but she appealed saying that the exclusionary rule applied to the 4th amendment and she won the case. Exclusionary rule stated that it "prevents illegally seized evidence from being introduced in court". The difference between the two scenarios is in the first one, the stuff they found poses a threat to society, but in the second it doesnt. Am I on the right track or can anyone help out here?

 

[tweakmm]

I'm pretty sure that once cops enter your house legaly whatever they find is fair game

 

[Deleted member 4644]

I am fairly sure they can charge you for it so long as the search warrant allowed for a fairly general search. Some warrants are very specific and only allow police to look in specific areas.. IIRC.

 

[jmcoreymv]

Does anyone know any legal precedents set by court cases to show that?

 

[Dudd]

Search warrants have to have a specific object you are looking for. If the cops suspect you of having a gun in your house, they can't go searching your computer for child porn because there is no way a gun can be on a computer hard drive. So, if they do that, the evidence will be surpressed. However, if you have a video on in the backround, they can't simply ignore it, and they have the authority to take you in because the evidence was in plain sight.

 

[MrYogi]

fruits of a poisonous tree.
The evidence is not admissible
but if they find it in plain view, they can use the evidence.

 

[jmcoreymv]

Lets say the warrant was to find meth. And lets say they wanted to search a cabinet for meth (negating the plain sight arguement), if they found weapons in the cabinet, could they charge you for it?

 

[yellowperil]

There is something called the "plain view doctrine" which means an officer does not need a warrant to seize contraband in plain view if he has a right to be there. I learned this by doing a quick Lexis search. I don't know where the source is (there is a ton of case material and most likely statutory as well), I would advise consulting your textbook.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
Lets say the warrant was to find meth. And lets say they wanted to search a cabinet for meth (negating the plain sight arguement), if they found weapons in the cabinet, could they charge you for it?

As long as the warrant was good for that location.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: MrYogi
fruits of a poisonous tree. The evidence is not admissible but if they find it in plain view, they can use the evidence.

What? How was the fruit poisoned? How is all of the evidence tainted? I'm confused.

 

[brxndxn]

There is something called the "plain view doctrine" which means an officer does not need a warrant to seize contraband in plain view if he has a right to be there. I learned this by doing a quick Lexis search. I don't know where the source is (there is a ton of case material and most likely statutory as well), I would advise consulting your textbook.

He's right.. I learned that in my Criminal Justice (CCJ3024) class. I believe there is also an exception to even search warrants and that is the whole 'threat to society' rule. Like, if a person called a threat and said he was gonna set off a bomb in his own home that would blow up the neighborhood, the illegal search and seizure rule would not apply because the person is actively making a threat.

 

[jmcoreymv]

But what if the weapons werent in plain sight but they found them as a result of looking for meth

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
But what if the weapons werent in plain sight but they found them as a result of looking for meth

Like I said. It depends on the warrant. If the warrant say, "Searchable areas are the bedroom and kitchen". If they find it in the bathroom then it is not admissible as far as I know UNLESS it was in plain view.

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
But what if the weapons werent in plain sight but they found them as a result of looking for meth

I took couple of administration of justice classes and will have to agree with what everyone has said so far. It all depends on what ground did police get the search warrant. If they got it let say because they have evidence you have drugs in the house then warrant will give them the right to search for drugs in the house. Now they can't search places were drugs can't be. Like someone mentioned on the hard drive. Now technically they can take your comp apart to look for drugs inside but they can't turn it on to see what?s on it. Also as someone else said if they walk in to your house and they see a gun lying on the couch and they have a warrant to search for drug and you ex-convict which prevents you from owning a firearm they will arrest you for the possession of the firearm. Now if they enter the house to search for a kidnap victim and they find her they can't continue search the house, they must go back get a warrant and then come back and search the house. They do have the right to secure the house to make sure nothing is taken out while they are getting the warrant and it must be reasonable time. It can't take them three days to get a warrant.

 

[bozo1]

I was a cop for a few years many years ago and the deal for us was:

Anything in plain site is fair game. That goes for stuff in plain site when executing a search warrant, anything you see in a car during a traffic stop, etc.

Anything you find while executing a search warrant is fair game if you were searching in a reasonable area for whatever the warrant was issued for. If you are searching for drugs and the warrant specifies the entire home, you can pretty much look anywhere you want since drugs are small enough to be hidden anywhere. Of course, if you are looking for a stolen elephant and find something illegal in a drawer, it would be inadmissable in court because opening a drawer to look for an elephant is not reasonable.

If there is ANYTHING wrong with the warrant, everything will be disallowed in court - wrong address, etc.

 

[astroview]

Fruit of a poisonous tree is pretty simple. If its the result of an illegal search its the "fruit of the poisonous tree."

The stuff the guys said about the plain evidence rule is true as well.

Not sure if this helps, but also:
There is a split in the courts right now if a premises warrant allows you to search the belongings of a visitor to the scene to a premises when the warrant is executed. Some allow it, some don't. See United States v. Micheli, 487 F.2d 429 (1st Cir. 1973) & United States v. Johnson, 475 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1973).


Oh, about the wrong address thing, I've seen it not enforced in some cases.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
Lets say the warrant was to find meth. And lets say they wanted to search a cabinet for meth (negating the plain sight arguement), if they found weapons in the cabinet, could they charge you for it?

Yes they could.

 

[Mill]

If you REALLY want to understand all the aspects of search and seizure, you need to get a CJ text book. There are tons of cases out there that set specific exclusions and inclusions for a certain case. You really need to read them all to get a true understanding.

I would start out with: Weeks v. US, Rochin v. California, Mapp v. Ohio, Brewer v. Williams, Nix v. Williams, US v. Leon, and Arizona v. Evans, Terry v. Ohio, Katz v. US, California v. Greenwood, and other cases. Lots out there and lot to read.