2 Discussion Questions; 1 Assignment (Paper)

"Search and Seizures" Please respond to the following: 

· Compare and contrast vehicle searches and inventories and indicate the most important differences between the two as they relate to law enforcement officers.  Then, use the Internet to research, identify, and summarize a criminal case where vehicle inventory was used from within the last three years.  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 and cite specifics from the case.

· Reply to the post of at least one of your classmates (below) a meaningful reply that compares or contrasts the classmate's post to yours or adds further insight into the topic.  A meaningful Reply will typically contain at least 100 words.

Bottom of Form

Tracy Cheek-Wilkins

RE: Week 5 Discussion

With any type of search and seizures, this is a procedure that is used within the civil law and common law within the legal system by police and or authorities and their agents when they suspect that a crime has been committed, with a search of a person property this is relevant evidence which is found in connection to a crime. With any type of specific interoperation this can vary and this is the right that can often require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant and or consent of the owner before engaging in any form of a search and seizure. In most cases it has to be evidence that a seized in a search and that evince might be rejected in court procure this is what they call a motion to suppress the evidence under the exclusionary rule. Collins v. Virginia The general rule under the United States Constitution is that a valid warrant is required for a search. There are, however, several exceptions to this rule, based on the language of the fourth amendment that the people are to be "secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures". During trial court, Collins argued that the police illegally entered the property to search as the vehicle was parked with the walled area that he considered the curtilage of the home, a violation under the Fourth Amendment, and sought to void the evidence taken by Rhodes' search. The state argued that the previous chase and two photos Collins had posted on Facebook of himself and the motorcycle were sufficient cause. The trial court agreed with the state that Rhodes has reasonable cause to search under the tarp; this ruling was upheld both in the state's appeal courts and in the Virginia Supreme Court, with the latter affirming that Rhodes' search was proper under the motor vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment defined through past Supreme Court cases, which allows for warrantless searches for automobiles where there is reasonable cause.

Bottom of Form

PUBLISHED