1. Facts
2. Issue
The issues in the following case are:
Whether the search conducted by the police officers violated a provision of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding a protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Did Mr. Blake had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he was residing at Mr. Smith`s household?
Could the evidence (drugs and guns) be considered admissible in a court of law?
3. Rule
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides protection against unlawful search and seizure of persons and their property. The provisions of the amendment clearly state that search and seizure shall be conducted with the presence of a warrant that particularly describes the places and/or things that need to be searched and/or seized.
In Mapp vs. Ohio case, The Supreme Court held that all the evidence received in violation of the procedure stipulated by The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution will be deemed inadmissible in criminal prosecutions, in state courts, as well as federal courts. (Mapp vs. Ohio, 1961)
In Horton vs. California case, The Supreme Court held that in order for the law enforcement officers to seize items for which they do not have a warrant, at least three conditions must be met:
- officers must be lawfully located in the place from which the object can be plainly seen
- officers must have a lawful right of access to the object itself
- incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent”. (Horton vs California, 1990)
In Minnesota vs. Carter case, The Supreme Court held that the person who is staying at another`s house for a short term period with the sole purpose of conducting a business transaction does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Minnesota vs Carter, 1998)
In Florida vs. Jardines, The Supreme Court held that a warrantless intrusion and investigation of the area surrounding the person`s household (also known as “curtilage”) constitutes the “search” in the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (Florida vs. Jardines, 2013)
4. Analysis
In the case of Mr. Blake, we can see that the police officers conducted a search and seizure in violation of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment of Constitution which state that no person shall be subject to search and/or seizure without a proper legal justification. The Constitution prescribes that law enforcement officials, in order to conduct search and/or seizure of the person or his/her effects, must present a warrant, supported by probable cause and that clearly describes “place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized’. As we can see from the fact pattern, neither the officers produced warrant, nor was consent for search and seizure granted. (United States Constitution, 1787)
Despite the fact that Mr. Blake was a guest at the Smith`s house, he still had a reasonable expectation of privacy during his stay. In Minnesota vs. Carter, the petitioner moved to suppress the evidence that was obtained as a result of the illegal search (police officer observed the procedure of cocaine packaging through the drawn window blind). The court ruled that the petitioner who was conducting a business of “packaging cocaine” in the premises of another person’s house did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus the officer, who was observing his illegal activity through the window, did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The court based its decision on the facts that the petitioner stayed in the house for the sole purpose of conducting business, whether legal or illegal, his stay was relatively short (only 2 hours) and that he had no previous relation with the owner of the house. In the case of Mr. Blake, we see that he was a good friend of Mr. Smith, his stay at Smith`s household did not have a character of any business meeting, despite the fact that Smith and Blake had a joint catering business, but rather had an informal, friendly nature. Considering these facts, it as assumed that Mr. Blake had a reasonable expectation of privacy along with other occupants of the house. (Minnesota vs Carter, 1998)
In Minnesota vs. Carter, the court did not decide whether the officer`s observation is considered as a “search” in the context of the Fourth Amendment, as initially, the petitioner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, in Florida vs. Jardines, the court ruled that if the law enforcement officer conducts a warrantless observation or investigation within the area which surrounds the house (also known as “curtilage”), he/she therefore, conducts a “search” as provided in the Fourth Amendment. As stated in the court`s holding, if a police officer does not have a warrant, he/she may approach a household with the intention to speak to its owners or occupants. However, there is no social custom which allows law enforcement officer to enter the curtilage and conduct an investigation or other kind of observation without owner`s consent or other legal justification.( Florida vs. Jardines, 2013)
In Horton vs. California case, the court reaffirmed the plain-view doctrine which allows seizing evidence without a warrant during a legitimate observation. According to the court`s holding, three conditions must be met in order for the evidence discovery to be lawful:
- an officer must be lawfully located at the place from which the object can be plainly seen;
-an officer must have a lawful right of access to the object itself;
- incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent”. (Horton vs California, 1990)
In the case of Mr. Blake`s warrantless search and seizure, none of those conditions was followed. Initially, an observation of activities through the window by the police officers constituted an illegal “search” as proven by the holdings of abovementioned cases. Moreover, the incriminating nature of the substances alleged to be “cocaine” and “marijuana” cannot be “immediately apparent” as in order to establish that a relevant chemical test must be conducted which obviously cannot be completed immediately.
In regard to the weapons found in Smith`s apartment, Mr. Blake cannot be charged with the possession of unregistered firearms as the question of whether the weapons actually belong to Mr. Blake is still in dispute.
In a landmark case, Mapp vs. Ohio, The Supreme Court held that all the evidence received in violation of the procedure stipulated by The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution will be deemed inadmissible in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts. This rule directly applies to the Blake`s case, eliminating all the evidence received as a result of illegal search and seizure. (Mapp vs. Ohio, 1961)
5. Conclusion
Considering all the facts and relevant rule of law, it is clear that the police officers violated a fundamental provision of the 4th Amendment prohibiting warrantless search and seizure. As proven by the ruling of the Supreme court in Minnesota vs. Carter, Mr. Blake along with the other occupants of the house had a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated by the officer`s unlawful actions. Therefore, all the evidence collected by the police officers during this search and seizure must be considered inadmissible in a court of law.
REFERENCES
1. Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0367_0643_ZO.html
2. Minnesota v. Carter 525 U.S. 83 (1998) Retrieved from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1147.ZO.html
3. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) Retrieved from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=128
4. Florida v. Jardines U.S. Supreme Court (3013) Retrieved from
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_5426.pdf
5. United States Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
