NCJ Number
129357
Date Published
1991
Length
61 pages
Annotation
After comparing constitutional doctrines relating to law enforcement conduct in a case involving the extraction of a sample of a suspect's blood to determine blood alcohol content (Schmerber v. California, U.S. Supreme Court), this chapter focuses on U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertinent to unreasonable searches and seizures.
Abstract
The doctrines considered in Schmerber v. California involve the due-process-clause claim, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the search-and-seizure claim. The Court held that none of these doctrines constituted a basis for excluding evidence obtained from a warrantless securing and testing of the suspect's blood sample. The decision considers the "threshold" issues that determine whether each of the doctrines applies; and if the doctrine applies, what requirements it imposes on law enforcement conduct. Two of the cases involving the fourth amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures focus on police activity constituting a "search." Oliver v. United States (1984) affirms that the government's intrusion upon an open field does not constitute a "search," since it does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy even though such an intrusion is a trespass at common law. In Florida v. Riley (1989), the Court affirmed the validity of a search warrant based on probable cause derived from an apparent sighting of a green house containing marijuana from a helicopter circling at 400 feet. Other U.S. Supreme Court cases presented pertain to police activity constituting a "seizure" (Horton v. California, 1990) and the application of the "standing" requirement in search and seizure (Rakas v. Illinois, 1978). Notes on the decisions are included.