California Search and Seizure Laws: A Legal Analysis

This report provides an analysis of the search and seizure laws in California, focusing on their alignment with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It examines the necessity of searches and seizures in criminal investigations while considering the right to privacy. The report delves into the legal framework, including the requirement of search warrants based on probable cause, as outlined in the California Penal Code. It also discusses exceptions to the warrant rule, such as voluntary consent and searches incident to a lawful arrest, referencing key cases like Schneckloth v. Bustamonte and Chimel v. California. The analysis highlights potential issues within the legislation, particularly concerning the discretionary powers afforded to law enforcement and the potential for abuse of due process, ultimately concluding that while the laws are generally sufficient, improvements are needed to prevent misuse of authority. The report is contributed by a student and is available on Desklib, a platform providing AI-based study tools for students.

Running head: SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEDURES IN CALIFORNIA
SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEDURES IN CALIFORNIA
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEDURES IN CALIFORNIA
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to analyze the search and seizure laws in force in the state of
California in light of the Fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This report seeks to identify
various problems in the legislation which defeat the legislative intent of the laws. These
observations are guided by judicial pronouncements that have interpreted the legislation.

2SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEDURES IN CALIFORNIA
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Discussion........................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................4
Reference list...................................................................................................................................5

3SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEDURES IN CALIFORNIA
Introduction
Search and seizures are necessary to be conducted by the investigating authorities in case
of criminal offences. These searches are aimed at uncovering evidence that would be
instrumental in obtaining a conviction and additionally also seek to prevent material evidence
from being destroyed. However, while conducting such searches the right to privacy guaranteed
to citizens must be taken into consideration.
Discussion
By virtue of the Fourth Amendment all citizens of the U.S. are safeguarded from
unreasonable search and seizures (Pavletic, 2018). This means that for police authorities to
conduct such a search the same must be sanctioned by a valid warrant or the circumstances must
fall within the ambit of one of the exceptions to the warrant rule as envisioned by the federal or
state courts. As per Section 1525 of the California Penal Code a valid search warrant would be
based on the probable cause and would have two essential descriptions, the first is of the place
that will be searched and secondly the evidence that the search is being conducted for. The
directives of the Fourth Amendment are codified in the state of California vide Article 1 Section
13 of the California Constitution. Thus, the protection against unreasonable search and seizures
is guaranteed under state law as well.
In both these prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizures the concept of
exceptions to the warrant rule are embodied. The exceptions, though reasonably constructed to
avoid arbitrary use of power, have gaps that solely depend on circumstantial interpretation of the
same. As held in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) 412 U.S. 218, 219 the voluntary search of

4SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEDURES IN CALIFORNIA
property with the owner’s consent falls under such an exception. But such consent could also be
obtained through coercion or undue influence. In such a case the search cannot be challenged as
it is not conducted through a warrant and yet is deemed to have been legally valid. This places an
immense amount of discretionary powers in the hands of the police. In Chimel v. California
(1969) 395 U.S. 752, 762-63 it was held that search and seizures relating to a lawful arrest would
fall under the exception but only if the search was related to obtaining evidence that is present or
may be destroyed if not recovered (Finkelman, 2018). However, an arrested convict would not
have the ability to physically execute destruction of the evidence and a warrant for such a search
can also be easily obtained. Thus, providing for such an exception paves the way to arbitrary use
of power.
Conclusion
To conclude, the search and seizure laws of the state of California though sufficient in
managing most criminal procedures provide for certain discretionary powers to the police that
maybe misused. Abuse of due process of law can never be condoned.

5SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEDURES IN CALIFORNIA
Reference list
Finkelman, P. (Ed.). (2018). Routledge Revivals: Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties
(2006): Volume 1, A-F. Routledge.
Pavletic, J. (2018). The Fourth Amendment in the Age of Persistent Aerial Surveillance. J. Crim.
L. & Criminology, 108, 171.