Home+Searches

Alexandra Owens, Joshua Renfro, Rachael Pestaña, Stephanie Siri

Home Searches

 c) what was the court's decision
====d) what impact did this decision have (did it keep things the same; change what could be done; etc) ====

**Mapp v Ohio-**
 * Mapp and her daughter were wanted for questioning in a bombing investigation, the police learned of the location where Mapp was, and after being denied access inside the house, police gathered backup where they then forced entry when Mapp did not come to the door. The issue that is being challenged are the events that took place after the police entered, the police faked a warrant, took evidence that they used against her in court and apparently hurt her. The courts decision was to void all of the evidence that the police gathered in that event. The impact of this decision was the thoughts of permissible scope of searching that police have while entering a house. **

**Chimel v California (1969) **

 * Police officers searched a house thoroughly after they entered the premises with an arrest warrant, but they did not have a search warrant. **


 * The US Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction and limited the areas that may be searched for weapons, if necessary, to protect the life of the officer and others. The suspect may also be searched to the extent necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence. The officer may search the area “within the immediate control” of the arrestee, such as a gun lying on the table near the suspect. **
 * Illinois v McArthur (2001) **
 * The US supreme says that police may prevent a person outside of their home from entering while police secure a warrant. In 2001 the court approved the decision to not let Charles McArthur from re entering his home after the police received a tip from his wife that read “Chuck has dope in there,” His wife was then summoned to come and get her belongings from the house, by the time she was done Charles was on the porch. The police said he could not enter his home without a police officer, two hours later they entered his home with a search warrant and found 2.5 grams of weed, and arrested him. McArthur wanted to excluded the evidence they found in court because he said it was not a proper search. US supreme court ruled 8-1 that the seizure was proper. The court held that the restriction on McArthur’s freedom was reasonable because: **
 * - They had probable cause that there were drugs **
 * - He could destroy the drugs if he went in alone **
 * - They made reasonable efforts to reconcile McArthur’s right to privacy **
 * - The police limited the restraint to only two hours **
 * This changed the way of how home searches could be dealt with and how it could prevent people from tampering with evidence. **

Richards v Wisconsin (1997)-
===**Richards was involved in a felony drug investigation. The police were not required to knock before entering because they had a search warrant, so they already thought they had a reasonable cause to enter. The issue being challenged was whether or not all knock and announcements should be looked at with a blanket style analysis. The Supreme Court struck down a blanket exception to the knock and announce rule and that every case needed to be analyzed on a case by case standard. The impact for this case was that all knock and announce cases were all judged on their own circumstances, not as just one case. **===

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 19px; vertical-align: baseline;">United States v Banks

 * In US vs. Banks, the time that police must wait for forcible entry after announcing their presence and intent was being challenged. The police arrived at Banks’ apartment to carry out a warrant to search for drugs. After knocking and yelling, “Police search warrant” they waited 15 to 20 seconds and forcibly entered the house. They found cocaine, 3 guns, and $6,000 cash all while Banks was in the shower. The court did not deem it necessary to complete a shower and did not answer the question of how long the police should wait after knocking, before forcibly entering. **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 17px; vertical-align: baseline;">What are the exceptions to "knock and announce" that are talked about on pg 108?-
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">Police who arrived on a dwelling to search with or without a warrant must knock and announce their presence prior to entering, the exception to this is that it may be relaxed under exigent circumstances, such as if there is a reason to believe that evidence sought will be destroyed or the suspects are armed and dangerous **