Without a valid Id. form a dog sniff search on the suspect. The

Click to Watch Video

On the topic of the video, Eske se vre yo pa pran $1,50 la ankò sou lajan transfè Haiti yo, Without a valid Id.

form a dog sniff search on the suspect.

The Court held that that sniff search violated the Fourth Amendment as it was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the stop.

Criminal evidence found during an unreasonable search (i.e. evidence that the dog sniff would have detected in Rodriguez after the police officer had already completed his search) is subject to the exclusionary rule and will be excluded from being introduced at trial.

In Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. __ (2016), the Supreme Court held that when a police officer finds there is a "valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant" for an individual, then any evidence obtained from a stop of that individual will be admissible in court, even if the stop would otherwise violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Strieff Court referenced its earlier ruling in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975).

In Brown, the Court held that evidence "obtained by the exploitation of an illegal arrest" is not admissible.

The Brown Court used a three-factor balancing test regarding the admissibility of the evidence:

The "temporal proximity" between the initially unlawful stop and the search,
The Court favored the admissibility of evidence when the evidence was found within a short time of the initial stop
The presence of intervening circumstances"
The Court favored the admissibility of evidence when there is a valid warrant that predates the stop and is unconnected with the stop
The "purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct"
The Court favored the admissibility of evidence when the officer's "conduct was lawful," as well as when "there is no indication that the stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct

Leave a Reply

» »