Identify and briefly define the eight exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
What will be an ideal response?
The eight exceptions to the search warrant requirement are exigent circumstances, vehicles, other places and things not covered by the Fourth Amendment, hot pursuit, incident to arrest, stop and frisk, plain view, and consent. Exigent circumstances, or emergency situations where evidence can be destroyed or people can get hurt if police do not act immediately, are exceptions. Vehicles are an exception because they are mobile in nature, and there are significant dangers for police in roadside encounters. Other places and things not included in the Fourth Amendment are exceptions to the search warrant requirement. This category includes open fields and bank records. The hot-pursuit exception applies when someone tries to avoid apprehension and the police follow to make an arrest and conduct a search because delaying could result in the loss of evidence or physical harm. The search incident to arrest exception applies when the police arrest someone and conduct a search as a result of that arrest due to the threat of danger. The stop-and-frisk exception applies when a search is needed for safety reasons, though an arrest may not be necessary. The plain-view exception applies when evidence is observed during a police officer's legal presence at that place. The consent exception is the most commonly performed search for it is done without a warrant but with the consent of the person being searched. No probable cause or reasonable suspicion is necessary to conduct this type of search.
You might also like to view...
The goal of stage three of Dialectic Behavior Therapy is to achieve an ordinary sense of happiness, as well as unhappiness
a. True b. False
Attorneys hired privately by the defendant have a significantly higher rate of acquittals than court-assigned attorneys.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Which of the following is at greatest risk for arrest and imprisonment?
A. Drug users B. Drug pushers C. Drug traffickers D. Drug cartel members
The Supreme Court in the case of Faretta v. California (1975), held that:
a. States that legal representation should not be denied to those who are unable to afford legal services b. Adopts flexibility by allowing a lawyer to not be obliged to accept a client whose character or cause the lawyer regards as repugnant c. Allows a lawyer to withdraw representation if the client insists upon pursuing objectives the lawyer finds repugnant or prudent d. Even in a serious criminal case, a defendant cannot be forced to be represented by counsel