3 ms·

Can you comment on why this was a 4th amendment violation? It seems like the police were legitimately called to the scene of a crime-in-progress and found evid

by defen 13y ago

Can you comment on why this was a 4th amendment violation? It seems like the police were legitimately called to the scene of a crime-in-progress and found evidence of said crime. If they had found cocaine instead of a video of a violent attack, would that also have been inadmissible in a court of law?

rayiner 13y ago
As a background consideration, keep in mind that we're talking about the search of a house, which is the absolute heart of the 4th amendment. Warrantless entry and search of a house is considered per se unreasonable under the 4th amendment. There are a few narrow exceptions. First, a warrant is not required when the sole occupant of the house consents.[1] However, in a situation like this one where the defendant is present, his objection is enough to render the entry unlawful, even if the other person consents.[2] Second, even if there is no consent, there are a few narrow exceptions the police can use. One of those is when "exigent circumstances" require the police to enter to prevent bodily harm or the destruction of evidence. But even in such cases, the acceptable scope of a warrantless search is limited by the circumstances that give rise to the exigency.[3] So in this case, the girlfriend called the police saying he was threatening to kill her, which would justify, under the exigent circumstances exception, their entry onto the property. However, that did not authorize them to conduct a search of the house for evidence of domestic violence. The scope of their entry and search should have been limited to the exigent circumstance that justified the warrentless entry: ensuring her immediate safety. The police raised "possible destruction of evidence" as a reason for the search, but they had no reason to believe, until they searched, that there was evidence to preserve. The exigent circumstances that justified the entry was securing the safety of the girlfriend. Once they entered, they cannot shift their theory and say the exigent circumstance is preventing the destruction of evidence. As for drugs, it depends. One of the other exceptions to the 4th amendment is that police are entitled to seize evidence in "plain view" during an otherwise lawful entry.[4] Had there been drugs strewn around the house, they would have been admissible. However, the video evidence was not in plain view. They had to go looking for it. If the police have to go looking for it, then that evidence is not admissible. That is true even when the evidence is drugs. [1] Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. __ (2014). [2] Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006). [3] Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). [4] Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).
- defen 13y ago
  Very interesting, thanks. Follow up question: if the girlfriend had said something like "There's a camera in the closet that recorded all this, and he'll probably erase it when you leave" - do you think that would have been sufficient to make it not a fourth amendment violation? The idea being that they were told about it by the victim, rather than searching for it.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    My read of the precedent is that when it comes to the invoking the destruction of evidence exception, the exigency must be imminent. If the girlfriend had said there was video tape of the beating, it would take very little time to get a warrant signed. This happened in San Francisco, and a big city like that will have magistrate judges on call 24/7. Meanwhile, if the police were lawfully on the premises to ensure her safety, they not only could lawfully detain him while waiting to get a warrant, but had probable cause to arrest him for domestic violence. My read is that courts favor a short detention like this over a warrantless search. I suppose that if she had called and just said: "he's going to delete tapes showing him beating me" they would have exigent circumstances to enter to prevent destruction of evidence, even if the circumstances were such that they didn't otherwise have exigent circumstances to enter to prevent bodily injury. But that's somewhat contrived.

by defen 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

As a background consideration, keep in mind that we're talking about the search of a house, which is the absolute heart of the 4th amendment. Warrantless entry and search of a house is considered per se unreasonable under the 4th amendment. There are a few narrow exceptions. First, a warrant is not required when the sole occupant of the house consents.[1] However, in a situation like this one where the defendant is present, his objection is enough to render the entry unlawful, even if the other person consents.[2] Second, even if there is no consent, there are a few narrow exceptions the police can use. One of those is when "exigent circumstances" require the police to enter to prevent bodily harm or the destruction of evidence. But even in such cases, the acceptable scope of a warrantless search is limited by the circumstances that give rise to the exigency.[3] So in this case, the girlfriend called the police saying he was threatening to kill her, which would justify, under the exigent circumstances exception, their entry onto the property. However, that did not authorize them to conduct a search of the house for evidence of domestic violence. The scope of their entry and search should have been limited to the exigent circumstance that justified the warrentless entry: ensuring her immediate safety. The police raised "possible destruction of evidence" as a reason for the search, but they had no reason to believe, until they searched, that there was evidence to preserve. The exigent circumstances that justified the entry was securing the safety of the girlfriend. Once they entered, they cannot shift their theory and say the exigent circumstance is preventing the destruction of evidence. As for drugs, it depends. One of the other exceptions to the 4th amendment is that police are entitled to seize evidence in "plain view" during an otherwise lawful entry.[4] Had there been drugs strewn around the house, they would have been admissible. However, the video evidence was not in plain view. They had to go looking for it. If the police have to go looking for it, then that evidence is not admissible. That is true even when the evidence is drugs. [1] Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. __ (2014). [2] Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006). [3] Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). [4] Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).

defen 13y ago
Very interesting, thanks. Follow up question: if the girlfriend had said something like "There's a camera in the closet that recorded all this, and he'll probably erase it when you leave" - do you think that would have been sufficient to make it not a fourth amendment violation? The idea being that they were told about it by the victim, rather than searching for it.
- rayiner 13y ago
  My read of the precedent is that when it comes to the invoking the destruction of evidence exception, the exigency must be imminent. If the girlfriend had said there was video tape of the beating, it would take very little time to get a warrant signed. This happened in San Francisco, and a big city like that will have magistrate judges on call 24/7. Meanwhile, if the police were lawfully on the premises to ensure her safety, they not only could lawfully detain him while waiting to get a warrant, but had probable cause to arrest him for domestic violence. My read is that courts favor a short detention like this over a warrantless search. I suppose that if she had called and just said: "he's going to delete tapes showing him beating me" they would have exigent circumstances to enter to prevent destruction of evidence, even if the circumstances were such that they didn't otherwise have exigent circumstances to enter to prevent bodily injury. But that's somewhat contrived.