Essay Sample on Search-and-seizure Situations

Chapter 5: Discussion-Evidence

The evidence collected by Police Officer Adams in search-and-seizure situation number one should not be excluded in a court of law. According to the turn of events during the high-speed car chase, the officer had justifiable actions of searching the suspect's car. That said, the officers stumbling on the murder weapon was only incidental as he had been searching for the defendants credential. In other words, the actions of the officer at the side of the road cannot be deduced to be warrantless search activities. Rather, the search was justifiable; looking for credentials to identify the defendant and incidental discovery and seizure of the alleged murder weapon.

The search-and-seizure of the knife can be related to the lawsuit R. v Diamond, 201 NLCA 60 (CanLII) in which Mr. Diamond was pulled over by an officer for speeding. As the officer was searching for the drivers license and vehicle registration, he spotted an unsheathed hunting-type knife with his flashlight. In addition to this, the officer was able to spot a small bag of cocaine which was also among the evidence used to arrest Mr. Diamond. Even though the majority of the C.A. dismissed an appeal against the utilization of the evidence, the trial judge had ruled that the evidence should not have been excluded as the officers actions had not constituted a search as the defendants suggested. In other words, the judge saw the road-side search-and-seizure actions as justifiable and incidental and so fit to be used as evidence. In the same case, the search-and-seizure actions by Officer Adams were justifiable and incidental and should not be excluded in a court of law.

In the search-and-seizure situation number three where the defendant sold a radar detector to the officer, the confiscated evidence should not be excluded in the court of law. The reason behind this decision is the fact the confiscation of evidence was conducted through the use of a genuine and valid search warrant. It is good to mention that the initially acquired radar detector should be taken as part of the investigation procedure acquisition in which the officer had to act as an undercover officer who was able to affirm the suspects activities. Following the successful undercover operation, the officer filed for a search warrant which was executed and led to the arrest of Lewis.

R. v Hebert [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151 is a lawsuit that was based on evidence and a confession based on undercover police. In this lawsuit, the undercover police, posing as an inmate in a cell, engaged the accused in a conversation which led to his arrest. In the scenario, the confession was collected through gaining information from the suspect even though he had claimed his right to remain silent about the alleged crime. In the search-and-seizure scenario at hand, the obtained radar detectors, TV sets, air conditioning units and compact discs should not be prone to the exclusionary rule since they were acquired following a legal and valid issue of a search warrant. Furthermore, the probable cause of the search was lawfully obtained through a legal undercover operation. The operations leading to the gathering of information and evidence were all lawful, justifiable and constitutional. For this reason, the evidence collected during the search-and-seizure of proof should not be subjected to the exclusionary rule.