CRJ325 - WEEK 5 - DISCUSSION 5

Search and Seizures

Go to the Illinois State Bar Association Website and read the article titled, “U.S. Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Cell-Phone Searches Incident to Arrest” located at http://www.isba.org/ibj/2014/09/ussupremecourtsays%E2%80%98no%E2%80%99cell-phonesea. Examine the court’s decision as it relates to cell phone searches incident to arrest. Based on all available information, agree or disagree with the court’s decision. Provide a rationale for your response.

After perusing the article “U.S. Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Cell-Phone Searches Incident to Arrest”, I agree with the Court’s decision that a cell phone and contents is not an incident to arrest. Even though the compiled history, data, messages and contacts may look incriminatory it still does stand as appropriate evidence to charge and prosecute due to its unreliability, lack of standing and cohesiveness.

In summary it is too abbreviated and does not follow a coherent and thoroughly thought out purpose and in effect the details or detailing is too sketchy and does not provide an evidential trail. Further there is no rationality to conclude active street gang activity on a cell phone and therefore it follows a reasoning thought who places contributory evidence of a felony on a cell phone that would further implicate and concede to a felony.

I agree in this instance (Riley v. California) and with United v. Wurie that the causal effect does not facilitate the purpose of conducting a warrantless search due to the matter of lacking in conclusivity. Further that as stated the sheer inconceivable ability to connect a user’s cell phone to crime is distinct and must have a warrant with reasonable and probable cause to grant to associate with crime. As such any evidence garnered is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and therefore no incident to arrest either as a separate standing or as accompanying evidence.

Compare and contrast vehicle searches and inventories and indicate the most important differences between the two (2) as they relate to law enforcement officers. In your own opinion, do you feel that law enforcement officers should be allowed to conduct vehicle inventories without warrants issued by judges? Provide a rationale for your response.

A vehicle search is a conclusive search that is based upon with warrant or under exigent circumstances without warrant. Based upon differing circumstances and the protective acts of the Fourth Amendment unreasonable searches and seizures are illegal and therefore is any evidence obtained. In order to search there must be consent, probable cause, officer’s protection or in the active state of arrest. As with all acts of legality the right to say “no” is still an act of favor and position to either refuse or grant the search based upon the Fourth Amendment’s right.

But if the officer has probable cause he can search the vehicle if it relates to an APB or radio in response. A warrantless search can be conducted under the “Plain View” doctrine which establishes a stance for further search and seizures as it allows the continued search and probable cause. An inventory search is a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle by the police. It is different from a vehicle search because its purpose is to make an accounting of contents and not a search for evidence. The purpose is to protect the officer and owner as to the found contents and further prevent exposure to dangerous items hidden or located inside the vehicle.

The differences between the two is first the warrantless vehicle search is an active search for incriminating evidence based upon probable cause whereas an inventory search is a protective measure for the police and owner of the impounded vehicle to prevent claims of misdoings and theft.

In my opinion, in order to protect self (police and department) and owner of impounded vehicle I feel that the procedure should be continued based upon a warrantless state since it is not an act of search but an accounting and therefore it does not need a warrant. With that thought in mind, comes the conclusion that it is a correct state of right and fairness to all interested parties.

Thank you.

Felicia


https://www.isba.org/ibj/2014/09/ussupremecourtsays%e2%80%98no%e2%80%99cell-phonesea
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2014/07/cell-phone-search-incident-to-arrest.aspx
http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/vehicle-searches.html
http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/vehicle-search-and-seizure.html
http://www.minicklaw.com/inventory-search-vehicle-legal/
www.mopca.com/mpca.nsf/str/BC02F4E07567FC50862577E3006CCABC/$file... ·

REPLY TO CO-STUDENT

I disagree with the enormous amount of information flowing through a smart phone it is impossible to use a cell phone as a guarantee because it can be easily stolen and compromised. A cell phone is not reliable evidence because they cannot obtain a probable cause or have a reasonable suspicion.

I agree with your points but I feel that the inventory is done to protect the officer and department from lawsuits and protect the owner's belongings. If the owner or driver of the vehicle is arrested then the car must be searched without warrant and the contents inventoried. Further if evidence turns out to be of a criminal nature then it must be used in a case against the owner or the occupant or the driver (or all)..

Thank you.

Felicia