California v. Lee :: 2019 :: California Courts of Appeal Decisions Our decision in Dumper rested on two grounds. As a consequence, police officers obtained a warrant for the "entire premises" of 529 Monroe Street, notwithstanding the fact that when they applied for the warrant, the police officers knew that the address contained two separate apartmentsone belonging to the suspect of the search, the other to an innocent third party. This Court has never held that a mere reference or citation to both a state constitutional provision and its federal counterpart is enough to preserve an argument that the parallel state provision provides for heightened protection. . Likewise, the People attempt to distinguish People v Dumper by arguing that the salient difference in Dumper was that the vehicle was driven onto the property during the execution of the warrant. The question before us The warrant application did not refer to any vehicles. at 299). . We decline to distort our preservation rule in such a manner where, as here, the claim was brought to the attention of the courts below, litigated by the parties, and addressed by the courts. As the Supreme Court has explained, "[e]ven though such a distinction perhaps could evolve in a series of cases in which paper bags, locked trunks, lunch buckets, and orange crates were placed on one side of the line or the other, the central purpose of the Fourth Amendment forecloses such a distinction" (id.). Your 4th Amendment Rights The 4 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure . at 128). As noted above, the extent to which a vehicle (or any container for that matter) located in the area authorized to be searched must be connected to the target or to the premises in order for a search of [*8]it to be reasonable has generated some disagreement among courts (see nn 1, 3, supra). Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431. In Ross, the United States Supreme Court held that, where police officers have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within a vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of every part of it and its contents, including all containers and packages, that may conceal the object of the search (id. In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 11, 2019 S18A1090. In fact, Cady expressly con-trasted its treatment of a vehicle already under police con-trol with a search of a car "parked adjacent to the dwelling You can explore additional available newsletters here. Supreme Court granted Mr. Gordon's motion to suppress. the critical facts and circumstances for the reviewing court are those which were made known to the issuing Magistrate at the time the warrant application was determined"]). Nevertheless, the majority argues that defendant's reliance on those cases, without more, was sufficient to preserve a state constitutional argument (see majority op at 16-17). In this case, the Suffolk County Police Department applied for and obtained a warrant to search the "person of" defendant and "the entire premises located at" an address believed to be defendant's residence, "a 1 story ranch style house." Instead of attempting to ameliorate the concern by, as other courts have done, fashioning an appropriate rule (see n 1, supra), the majority categorically prohibits the search of vehicles pursuant to a premises warrant unless the vehicles are identified in the warrant application and supported by a separate showing of probable cause, making vehicles concealed on premises effectively search proof.
Where Is Michelle Tuzee Today,
Jw Marriott Cancun Pool Bar Menu,
Formal And Informal Powers Of The President Quizlet,
Tennis Courts With Backboards Near Me,
Articles R
recent illegal search and seizure cases 2019