Moak: Criminal Justice Procedure, 8th Edition


Case Studies

Chapter 02: The 4th Amendment

During a rape investigation officers received information from the victim describing the suspect and the weapon he used during the crime. The officers went to a suspect’s home to look for a hand gun described by the victim in her statement. The suspect, at the time was not in custody and was said to be at work when the officers were going to arrive at his residence. Prior to arriving at the home, officers were informed that the suspect lived with his grandmother. The officers did not receive a search warrant to enter the home, but were hoping to receive consent from the grandmother to enter the home. Upon arriving at the home, one of the five officers went to the door and was met by the grandmother. When the officer announced that he had a search warrant to search the house (which he did not), the grandmother responded affirmatively and allowed the officers to enter and begin searching the premises. Officers searched several parts of the home including the kitchen, the suspect’s bedroom bathroom, and the living area. The officers then found a small handgun matching the description given by the victim in the case. The evidence was seized from the suspect’s bedroom. After finding the handgun, additional evidence was seized from the suspect’s bedroom. At that point the officers drove to the suspect’s place of work and arrested him. All of the evidence taken from the home was used at the suspect’s trial. The suspect was subsequently charged and convicted of rape.

Questions

  1. When the officers arrived at the home, did they need a search warrant?

    Correct Answer

    Yes. The officers should have received a search warrant prior to entering the suspect’s home. Though the grandmother gave consent, she believed the officer already had a search warrant.

  2. Should the small handgun have been admissible in court?

    Correct Answer

    No. The evidence should not have been admissible in court. The search was improperly conducted and should have been excluded through the Exclusionary rule.

  3. Should the additional evidence have been admissible in court?

    Correct Answer

    No. Due to the Fruits of the Poisonous Tree doctrine, any evidence obtained after the initial bad search should be inadmissible.

Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.