Criminal Law: Seizing Objects And The Law's Reach

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. A search and seizure is considered unreasonable if it is conducted without a valid search warrant, unless it falls under an exception to the warrant requirement. A valid search warrant must meet four requirements: it must be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer, based on reliable information showing probable cause, issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, and must specifically state the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Police may seize objects not specified in the warrant if they are in plain view during the course of the search. The exclusionary rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being admitted in a court of law, and any evidence gathered on the basis of this evidence (known as fruit of the poisonous tree) will also be excluded.

Seizure of property

In the United States, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. This means that a valid search warrant is generally required for a search and seizure to be considered reasonable. To obtain a search warrant, police must demonstrate probable cause that a crime was committed and that the items to be seized are likely connected to the crime. The warrant must also specify the location to be searched and the items to be seized. However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as when officer safety is at risk or when there is a risk of evidence destruction.

In the UK, while there is no direct counterpart to the Fourth Amendment, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) embody similar principles of protecting individuals' rights against intrusive state actions. The concept of "due process" in the UK legal system also emphasizes fairness and justice in the context of seizures, ensuring that individuals are properly informed about the seizure, its reasons, and their legal rights.

It is important to note that illegal seizures can have significant implications in criminal cases. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, recognized in both the US and the UK, excludes evidence obtained through illegitimate means, such as illegal searches or seizures, from being used in a court of law. This doctrine can lead to the exclusion of crucial evidence, potentially resulting in the failure of the entire case and the defendant's acquittal.

Additionally, the difference between asset seizure and asset forfeiture is essential to understand. Asset seizure occurs when a person is temporarily deprived of the use of an asset, such as a frozen bank account, while asset forfeiture results in the permanent loss of the asset due to a court order or judgment. Criminal asset forfeiture is used to take away assets involved in the commission of a crime, while civil asset forfeiture does not require a criminal conviction but only probable cause of criminal activity.

Search without a warrant

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. A search or seizure is unreasonable if it is conducted without a valid search warrant and does not fall under an exception to the warrant requirement. A valid search warrant must meet four requirements:

• The warrant must be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer.
• The warrant must be based on reliable information showing probable cause to search.
• The warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.
• The warrant must specifically state the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

Police may only search the particular area and seize the specific items called for in the search warrant. They may search outside the scope of the warrant only if they are protecting their safety or the safety of others or if they are acting to prevent the destruction of evidence. They may seize objects not specified in the warrant only if they are in plain view during the course of the search.

There are several exceptions to the warrant requirement, including:

• Consent: If someone the police reasonably believe has the authority to give consent does so, the police do not need a warrant. For example, if a person's girlfriend gives the police a key to her boyfriend's apartment, and the police reasonably believe she lives there, their search of the apartment does not violate the boyfriend's Fourth Amendment rights. The person giving consent must have the mental capacity to do so.
• Motor Vehicle: Law enforcement can search a car without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed other than a traffic offense.
• Emergency/Hot Pursuit: In emergency situations, police are allowed to search without a warrant if they reasonably believe that a person will hide or destroy evidence, reach for a weapon, or that criminal activity is currently happening.
• Search Incident to Lawful Arrest: Police may conduct a limited search of a person and items within their immediate control during or immediately after a legal arrest. This does not extend to searching a person's cell phone, for which a warrant is required.

Exclusionary rule

The exclusionary rule is a legal concept in the United States that prevents evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures from being admitted in a court of law. It applies to all persons within the United States, including citizens, immigrants (legal or illegal), and visitors. The rule is based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring law enforcement to have a valid warrant or probable cause.

The exclusionary rule acts as a deterrent to law enforcement officers, preventing them from conducting searches or seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also provides a remedy to defendants whose rights have been infringed. The rule applies not only to the evidence obtained directly through an unlawful search or seizure but also to any additional evidence that law enforcement may have discovered as a result, known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. For example, if an officer stops and searches someone without a legitimate reason but then finds drugs on the person, neither the drugs nor any evidence derived from the discovery of the drugs can be used in court.

While the exclusionary rule generally applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, there are some exceptions. For instance, the rule typically does not apply to violations of the knock-notice rule, unless a particular state has decided otherwise. Additionally, in some cases, the prosecution may still use unconstitutionally seized evidence to impeach the credibility of the defendant as a witness at trial. Furthermore, if the prosecution can obtain a conviction without the unconstitutionally seized evidence, the judge may still consider it when determining the sentence.

The exclusionary rule also extends beyond the Fourth Amendment to protect against violations of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to counsel. The rule is often a defendant's only remedy when police officers conduct an unreasonable search or violate their Miranda rights due to qualified immunity, which protects officers from lawsuits unless no reasonable officer would believe their conduct was legal.

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine is a legal metaphor in the United States that describes evidence gathered from illegitimate means, such as illegal searches or seizures. The doctrine extends the exclusionary rule, which prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers.

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine deems that evidence or facts discovered as a result of an illegal seizure are inadmissible in court. This is because, as the metaphor suggests, if the evidential "tree" is tainted, so is its "fruit". The doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, and the phrase "fruit of the poisonous tree" was coined by Justice Frankfurter in his 1939 opinion in Nardone v. United States.

The exclusionary rule provides that any evidence obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure cannot be introduced against a defendant at a criminal trial. This rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being admitted in a court of law. An example of the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is when an officer stops an individual without cause, searches their purse, and finds a note indicating that they are hiding stolen property. The officer then enters the individual's home, seizes the stolen property, and arrests the individual for theft. Neither the note nor the hidden property is admissible as evidence because the initial search of the purse was illegal (the poisonous tree), and the seizure of the hidden property (the fruit) resulted from the illegal search.

There are some exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. An exception applies when law enforcement would have found the evidence anyway, through a source independent of the illegal activity. For example, if an officer does not have a legitimate reason to stop and search someone, but a legitimate reason arises during the stop, evidence that they find may be admissible in some situations. The doctrine has also been rejected in some jurisdictions, such as Australia and India, where courts have tended to admit evidence irrespective of the legality of the source, especially if it will help prove guilt or innocence.

Due process

The following elements reflect the involvement of due process in handling seizures: Proper Notification: The person from whom the property is being seized must be properly informed about the seizure, the reasons behind it, and their legal rights. This includes the right to a fair trial, which is protected by the exclusionary rule, preventing illegally obtained evidence from being admitted in a court of law. Evidence gathered on the basis of illegally obtained evidence (known as "fruit of the poisonous tree") will also be excluded.

In the US, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. A search and seizure is considered unreasonable if it is conducted by police without a valid search warrant, and does not fall under an exception to the warrant requirement. A valid search warrant must meet four requirements: (1) the warrant must be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer; (2) it must be based on reliable information showing probable cause; (3) the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; and (4) it must state specifically the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

In the UK, while there is no exact counterpart to the Fourth Amendment, the spirit of this amendment is reflected in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The procedures, rights, and requirements may differ, but the common essence around 'seizure' remains.

Frequently asked questions