The State of Confusion v. William K Defendant Case Study

Introduction

The search and seizure powers of police may be exercised in either the presence or absence of a search warrant. A seizure in the absence of a warrant is justifiable if exigent circumstances exist thus making it impractical to obtain a search warrant. Against a background of R. v. Paterson, 2017 SCC 15, this report reviews seizure powers in light of exigent circumstances. The report seeks to determine the scope of exigent circumstances as a basis for searches.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Procedural Issues

• Under the Fourth Amendment, did the police violate the rights of William K Defendant?
• Did the police violate the Fourth Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search on the defendant's motorbike?
• If the police violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, did exigent circumstances existed such that it was impractical for the police to obtain a search warrant?

Facts

In The State of Confusion v. William K Defendant, the police collected evidence from the defendant's garbage. Here, the defendant was a gang leader of a club, Iguanas, which was involved in trafficking of illegal drugs. After receiving a tip from an informant, the police conducted warrantless searches on the defendant's trash bags as well as his motorbike. From the searches, the police obtained evidence to arrest the defendant. The defendant argues that the arrests were unreasonable and that the police had violated his reasonable expectations of privacy when they conducted the searches.

Discussion of Both Sides

When the police officers took evidence from the defendant's garbage at his home, the fourth amendment right of the defendant was not violated. The rules provided by the fourth amendment do not prohibit any forms of search and seizures as a result of evidence obtained from garbage. It means that even without a warrant, the evidence that got collected outside of the suspect's house in the trash is appropriate for the further collection of evidence that leads to an arrest.

The law argues that the police officers have not violated any rights of the defendant by collecting evidence from the garbage that is left outside in the refuse to make an arrest. It is because it serves as a tip or a source of information that acts as the lead to the search and seizure. Thus, it does not require any form of warrant. During a ruling, it said that the defendant voluntarily left the rubbish outside to be collected. Mainly, it got left in an area that is suitable for police inspection. It mostly because the litter cans get left in the open and the public areas which are not restricted and cannot be said to be the private residence of the individual. It based on the collective knowledge that the trash bags and bins that get left in public are accessible even to animals, scavengers, snoops, children and the other members of the public. In this respect, it considered that the defendant left the trash at the curb for the express reason of being able to convey it to a third party who is the collector of the garbage. This person, who is different from the owner of the trash, is allowed to go through it and to sort it out and even to permit other people who may include the police to do the same. As such, reasonably it can be considered that it is not possible for the police to keep their eyes away from evidence displayed regarding any form of criminal activity in a place or nature that could also be observed by another member of the public (Cummings, 2015).

Thus, this idea also comes from the notion that prior information had been provided earlier regarding the likelihood of the members of the Iguanas club where the defendant is a leader to be involved in drug and illegal activities from a confidential informant. It, therefore, means that with this information, as well as the displayed form in the trash bag. It is the mandate of the police to use all kinds of means to apprehend the suspect. In this case, an argument that the performance of a warrantless search or seizure in this way is impermissible lacks merit. According to the law, the idea that the search under the law of the fourth amendment is dependent on the privacy concepts does not apply when compared to the understanding of the society wholly on the aspect of the desire to provide citizens with the protection against prohibited invasion (Cummings, 2015).

The defendant's fourth amendment right got not violated when police officers searched the parked bike in his home and found drugs in the motorcycle bins. It is because the fourth amendment lifts the provision of this protection through its automobile exemption rule.

Therefore, although the residential property of a suspect should not be searched or seized without a warrant, it becomes different in the case of a motorcycle that has been spotted before by the police and is believed to be involved in illegal activity. Therefore, through this, the police officer is allowed by the Fourth Amendment to enter the cartilage of a home and to search for any vehicle or motorcycle that is parked therein without a warrant and uninvited. In this case, it allows any police officer who acts as a probable cause that the bike is the same one that got associated with illegal activities (Baude & Stern, 2015). For instance, in the scenario, it is the same purple speed bike with LED lighting that had parked at cartilage of the defendant. It is an indication of the prior information that the police were working on about the association of the owner of the bike with other individuals who were involved in drug peddling as well as the information that had been provided by the informant before. Moreover, the search also associated with the evidence that had already got collected from the waste bin that belongs to the defendant. In such cases, then, the fourth amendment allows the police officer to perform a warrantless and uninvited search and seizure if they have a probable cause that the motorcycle is involved in illegal activities. Thus, the warrantless search becomes justifiable under the law.

In relevant part, the fourth amendment provides that the citizens in the United States have a right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" (U.S. Constitution). As such, this right is not supposed to be violated in any way by any persons who include a police officer. In the event of a suspected illegal activity, they are expected to obtain a search warrant that allows them to perform the searches and seizures legally (Miller & Wright, 2015). Nonetheless, in this case, there is the display of the intersection of two major components of the fourth amendment. They are the exception of the automobiles to the requirement to use the warrant and the protection that extended towards the cartilage of a home. It becomes essential to determine whether the search and seizure were legal on the ground that the police had identified and noticed that the automobile associated with the conduct of some criminal activities. Alternatively, they confirm if it was illegal based because the search got conducted without a warrant on the cartilage belonging to the defendant and on which the bike had parked.

The decision, in this case, is made from the argument that it is reasonable to search an automobile even without a warrant. It is primarily in the case where the officers act by a probable cause as seen in the fact that the motorbike had been identified to be amidst others that had been suspected to be taking part in illegal activities. Thus, as indicated by the law, the critical difference comes in relation to searching "a house, store or dwelling" as opposed to the search of a "ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile as these can quickly move out of the area or jurisdiction where the warrant got sorted" (U.S. Constitution).

Conclusion

Exigent circumstances as a basis for warrantless searches should not motivate the violation of privacy laws. It is important to note that the urgency of entry should be balanced against the right to privacy. A warrantless search and seizure fly against the legitimate expectation of privacy in one's home. The need to respect privacy is instructive to police work. Importantly, by upholding privacy rights during warrantless searches based on exigent circumstances, police contribute to the administration of justice and protection of the Charter.

Police should observe due diligence in ensuring that their understanding of exigent circumstances is one which captures the need to promote public safety, preserve evidence, or protect the safety of the person of the police. The second element of exigent circumstances requires that the circumstances must make it impossible for the police to obtain a search warrant. According to the Court, a warrantless seizure should only be conducted if the exigent circumstances make it impractical to get a search warrant. Overall, the police should ensure that warrantless searches based on exigent circumstances are lawful.

References

Baude, W., & Stern, J. Y. (2015). The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment. Harv. L. Rev., 129, 1821.

Cummings, S. (2015). Search & Seizure: Historical Analysis of the Fourth Amendment. New York: Routledge.

Miller, M. L., & Wright, R. F. (2015). Criminal Procedures: The Police. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business

U. S. Constitution. Art I, Sec. 8. Amendment IV.