NCJ Number
18148
Journal
St John's Law Review Volume: 48 Issue: 2 Dated: (DECEMBER 1973) Pages: 340-347
Date Published
1973
Length
8 pages
Annotation
EXAMINES RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WHEN THE QUESTION OF THE CONSENT OR NON-CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED TO A WARRANTLESS SEARCH IS INVOLVED.
Abstract
CANDELLA WAS ARRESTED IN HIS HOME FOR ILLEGALLY TRANSPORTING HANDGUNS ACROSS STATE LINES. THE ARRESTING AGENT HAD NOT SECURED A SEARCH WARRANT. AFTER ADVISING CANDELLA OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS, THE AGENTS ASKED HIM IF HE HAD ANY OF THE GUNS. CANDELLA GESTURED TOWARD SPOTS IN THE ROOM WHERE THE GUNS WERE HIDDEN, AND THE AGENTS PROCEEDED TO THE SPOTS TO EXPOSE THE GUNS. PRIOR TO TRIAL THE DEFENDANT MOVED TO SUPPRESS THE HANDGUNS WHICH HAD BEEN SEIZED AT HIS HOUSE. THE DISTRICT COURT CONDUCTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING WHICH ENTAILED A DETAILED INQUIRY INTO THE SEIZURE WHERE THE PROSECUTOR ARGUED THAT PROBABLE CAUSE AND THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE JUSTIFIED THE SEARCH. THESE ARGUMENTS WERE REJECTED AND THE HANDGUNS ORDERED SUPPRESSED. ON APPEAL TO THE SECOND COURT THE ORDER WAS REVERSED. THE MAJORITY HELD THAT CANDELLA'S RESPONSE TO THE AGENTS' INQUIRY CONSTITUTED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO THE SEIZURE OF THE GUNS. THE DISSENT HELD THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF CONSENT SINCE IT HAD NOT BEEN ARGUED BY THE PROSECUTOR AT THE DISTRICT COURT SUPPRESSION HEARING. THE AUTHOR CONSIDERS THAT IN THIS CASE THE COURT OF APPEALS INVADED THE PROVINCE OF THE TRIER OF FACTS, RELIEVING THE PROSECUTOR OF HIS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE APPARENT CONSENT WAS VOLUNTARY.