Search Warrant Is NOT Needed: Submit Your Cornell Notes On Common Exceptions For When A

Submit your Cornell notes on common exceptions for when a
search warrant is NOT needed

There are six major exceptions to the warrant requirement.
1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

A search incident to lawful arrest does not require issuance of a warrant. In other words,
if someone is lawfully arrested, the police may search her person and any area
surrounding the person that is within reach (within his or her “wingspan”). See Chimel v.
California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The rationale is that the search is permissible as a
protective measure for police safety and to secure evidence that might be destroyed.
EXAMPLE: Pursuant to an arrest warrant, John is taken into custody in his home. As
the police escort John out of his house, they search the area within his wingspan. After
securing John in his vehicle, the officers search the basement of the house. Any
evidence gathered from the basement will be excluded because it was not within John’s
wingspan as he left the home.
A search incident to lawful arrest also applies to the search of a vehicle, specifically
when officers arrest the occupants of a vehicle. In Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332
(2009) the U.S. Supreme Court held that an officer may search a vehicle if the officer
has a reasonable belief that the vehicle harbors weapons accessible to the arrestee (a
continuing threat to officer safety) and/or if the officer believes the vehicle harbors
evidence concerning the crime of arrest.
2. Plain View Exception

No warrant is required to seize evidence in plain view if the police are legitimately in the
location from which the evidence can be viewed. For example, an officer cannot illegally
enter a suspect’s back yard and then use the plain view exception to seize an illegally
kept alligator living in the pool. But, if on the premises to serve a warrant duly issued to
search for marijuana plants, the alligator, if in plain view, can rightly (though by no
means easily) be seized.
EXAMPLE: The police are called to Donald’s house by neighbors who see him beating
up his wife, Victoria. After properly entering the house (without a search warrant – see
emergency exception below), police notice Donald’s prized gun collection hanging on
the wall. Fortunately for the officers, the guns are not loaded. Unfortunately for Donald,
many of them are illegal and Donald is arrested for battery as well as for the illegal
guns, which are seized.
3. Consent
If consent is given by a person reasonably believed by an officer to have authority to
give such consent, no warrant is required for a search or seizure. So, if a suspect’s
"significant other" provides police with a key to the suspect’s apartment, and police
reasonably believe that she lives there, the search will not violate suspect’s Fourth
Amendment rights even if she did not live there and even if she, in fact, lacked authority
to consent. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).
Officer Warren knocks on a murder suspect’s door. The door is answered by the
suspect’s 6-year-old child, Timmy. The officer asks Timmy, “Is it okay if I come in and
talk to your Dad? He’s expecting me.” And then walks into the apartment. He then sees
the suspect, Roland, sitting on the sofa oiling his illegal Tommy-gun, the suspected
murder weapon. He arrests Roland for possession of the gun and seizes the evidence.
Because Timmy, being a small child, was not legally able or authorized to give consent,
the entry was illegal and the evidence will be excluded.
4. Stop & Frisk

Police may stop a suspect so long as there is a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act
and the officer can articulate facts leading to that suspicion. The evidence necessary for
“reasonable suspicion” here is something beyond mere suspicion, but is less than the
level required for probable cause. If there is reason to believe that the person may be
armed and dangerous, the police can also frisk the suspect. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
1 (1968).
EXAMPLE: Officer P. Harker’s peers often joke that he has something akin to a “spidey-
sense” which tells him when folks are up to no good. While enjoying a cup of coffee at
his favorite donut shop, Officer Harker’s neck hairs stand up straight. He immediately
goes outside where he sees Ivan walking down the street, carrying a small duffel bag.
He orders Ivan to stop and drop the bag. When the bag falls, Officer Harker hears the
clanging of metal against metal. He then frisks Ivan and discovers a hidden pistol in
Ivan's pocket. He then searches the duffel bag and discovers ammunition and several
illegal hunting knives. Despite the fact that Officer Harker’s “spidey-sense” proved
accurate once again, the evidence will be excluded as he cannot articulate any reason
why he stopped Ivan, other than his unusually active neck hairs.
5. Automobile Exception
Because vehicles are obviously highly mobile, a warrant is not required to search
vehicles if police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a
crime, the instrumentalities of crime, contraband, or the fruits of a crime. Although
commonly referred to as the “automobile exception,” this rule applies to any vehicle,
including boats. While in some ways, it is quite a broad exception, this rule limits the
ability to search those areas that might contain evidence of the type suspected to be
present. In other words, if police suspect that the occupant of a boat is smuggling
people across the border, searching a small tackle box on board would not be
permissible. However, if they were looking for drugs, they could search the tackle box.
The rationale is that, if an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle
might be out of reach before the warrant can be issued and executed. See Carroll v.
United States, 267 US. 132 (1925).
EXAMPLE: Officer Demidum has reason to believe that an abandoned car on the

corner contains illegal drugs in the trunk. The car is missing all four wheels and is up on
cinder blocks, and the engine was stolen long ago. Assuming that the automobile
exception applies, Officer Demidum uses a crowbar to force open the still-working lock
on the trunk. There, he finds 10 kilos of cocaine. Rushing back to the station house to
show off the evidence to his Captain, Officer Demidum runs into Judge Sosad. Judge
Sosad says “You should have called me first. While it’s great to get the drugs off the
street, unfortunately we can’t use this as evidence against anyone. The search was
illegal, as the automobile exception to the warrant requirement only applies when the
vehicle is actually capable of being moved. That’s the whole point of the exception!” A
dejected Demidum continues on to the station, where he has to tolerate cars drawn in
shaving cream on his locker for the next month.
6. Emergencies/Hot Pursuit
The rationale here is similar to the automobile exception. Evidence that can be easily
moved, destroyed or otherwise made to disappear before a warrant can be issued may
be seized without a warrant. Furthermore, if a suspect enters private property while
being pursued by officers, no warrant is required to enter that property in order to
continue pursuit, even if the suspect is in no way connected with the property owner.
In Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified exactly how
far the exigent/emergency exception applies. In King, Kentucky police attempted to
purchase illegal drugs from a suspect. After the transaction, the suspect proceeded
toward a nearby apartment complex. An officer radioed that he saw the suspect go into
the apartment on the right. When officers entered the apartment building, they smelled
marijuana emanating from the apartment on the left, therefore, they knocked, extremely
hard ("as loud as they could"), on the door and announced their presence. After the
officers heard shuffling and a toilet flush, noises considered to be “consistent with the
destruction of evidence," the officers kicked in the door and found a gentleman (not the
original suspect) on a sofa smoking marijuana and cocaine. Upon further search of the
apartment law enforcement located more illegal drugs and paraphernalia. At trial, King
filed a motion to suppress, but was denied at both the state circuit court and court of
appeals levels. On review, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed and held the search
violated the Fourth Amendment. The case then proceeded via writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court, reversing the
Kentucky Supreme Court, held that no warrant was required because the officers faced
exigent circumstances, an emergency situation, where it was reasonable to conclude
that evidence was being destroyed.
EXAMPLE: While running from police, Fred enters Joe’s garage and the police follow
Fred in. (They are not required to give up pursuit until such time as they can obtain a
search warrant for the premises.) While in Joe's garage, police notice illegal drugs in
plain view. They can arrest Fred for his crimes, and they can also seize the drugs and
arrest Joe for possession of the drugs, even though Joe had nothing to do with Fred
and the police were in Joe’s garage only because of the hot pursuit of Fred!
Unless the fact-pattern fits one of the six exceptions discussed above, a warrant is
required for police to conduct a search or seizure. Note that for Exception 1, search
incident to a lawful arrest, and Exception 5, the automobile exception, although no
warrant is required, there is a probable cause requirement. For a search incident to a
lawful arrest, the officer must have had probable cause for the original arrest. If the
original arrest was unreasonable or unlawful, the evidence discovered from the search
will be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree (see the subchapter on the Exclusionary
Rule). For the Automobile Exception, the officer must have probable cause to believe
that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, instrumentalities of a crime, contraband,
or fruits of a crime, whether the vehicle is moving or already stopped. Exception 4 ("stop
and frisk") does not require probable cause, but does require "reasonable suspicion."
Only Exception 3 (consent) requires no grounds on the part of the police for making the
search.

Search Warrant Is NOT Needed: Submit Your Cornell Notes On Common Exceptions For When A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Search Warrant Is NOT Needed: Submit Your Cornell Notes On Common Exceptions For When A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Search Warrant Is NOT Needed: Submit Your Cornell Notes On Common Exceptions For When A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Submit your Cornell notes on common exceptions for when a

search warrant is NOT needed

1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

2. Plain View Exception

4. Stop & Frisk

EXAMPLE: Officer Demidum has reason to believe that an abandoned car on the

You might also like