Search and Seizure: Exceptions to the Fourth Amendment Warrant Rule

This assignment provides an overview of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure rules. It discusses six key exceptions: search incident to a lawful arrest, the plain view doctrine, consent, stop and frisk, the automobile exception, and exigent circumstances. Each exception is explained with its rationale and relevant case law, such as Chimel v. California, Illinois v. Rodriguez, Carroll v. United States, and Kentucky v. King. The assignment highlights the legal basis for each exception and its implications for law enforcement. The assignment also includes references to legal scholars and case law to support the analysis. The analysis emphasizes the balance between individual rights and the needs of law enforcement.

Running head: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Search and Seizure
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
The six major exception in relation to warrant requirements in relation to the rule of search and
seizure provided through the fourth amendment. These exceptions are as follows.
1. Search incident in relation to lawful arrest
An incident which involves a lawful arrest does not need a warrant. To make it simple,
where a person has been lawfully arrested, the police has the right to search the person or
any area in relation to the surrounding of that person within his or her reach. This was
also discussed by the court in the case of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The
exception to the rule is fair as search has to be permitted in from of a protective measure
in relation to securing evidence and police safety.
2. Exception of plain view
When the evidence is in plain view there is no warrant required to seize the evidence.
However for this the police has to be present in a legitimate manner from where the
evidence may be seized. Thus a police cannot enter the house of a suspect in an illegal
manner and seize an evidence which is in plain view. However the police when have a
warrant to search for something can seize any other thing which is in plain view. This
expectation is also reasonable as it is not violating the right of the person as warrant is
already present (Renan, 2016).
3. Exception of consent
When a person has given consent in relation to the search process who the police officer
reasonably believes to have authority a search warrant may not be required. Thus if the
wife or husband of the suspect provides permission to the police to search an apartment
than the police does not require a warrant as also discussed in Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497

2
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
U.S. 177 (1990). However this exception is not reasonable as the right of the person is
violated (Dressler & Thomas, 2016).
4. Exception of stop and frisk
In situation where the police has reasonable suspension in relation to a criminal activity
and also articulate facts from which the suspicion has arose the police may stop the
suspect. However the police officer must have a reason which is more than mere
suspicion. This exception is reasonable as a person may be dangerous and carrying arms.
5. Exception of Automobile
A warrant is not needed to search a vehicle as they are highly mobile and the police has a
reasonable belief that that may contain evidence of contraband, instrumentalities of crime
and fruits of crime. The is also reasonable as the police may not get another chance of
getting the evidence of stopping the crime as discussed in the case of Carroll v. United
States, 267 US. 132 (1925).
6. Exception of emergencies
Similar rationale for this exceptions can be derived from that of the automobile
exception. Evidence which are of a nature of being easily moved or destroyed can be
seized by the police without a search warrant. These provisions were discussed in the
case of Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011). The application of this exception is
highly controversial.

3
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
References
Dressler, J., & Thomas, G. C. (2016). Criminal Procedure, Principles, Policies and
Perspectives. West Academic Publishing.
Renan, D. (2016). The Fourth Amendment as Administrative Governance. Stan. L. Rev.,
68, 1039.