Is a warrantless arrest an absolute defense?

How about some background on the situation?

There is no background, it's just a question. It's a 4th Amendment right, so I think it should be an absolute defense, but I do not know if it is.

I've heard of cases where a person/property was illegally searched and evidence gathered without warrant was inadmissable and as a result cases are dropped. I am asking if this applies as a general rule (well, of course it's a general rule, it's in the Constitution! ), not just with physical evidence. As in, if a person is arrested PERIOD, no matter what for, for an unwarranted reason, is the arrest unconstitutional and shoulod the charges be dropped?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What I have trouble with is how it relates in every day life. I understand "search and seizure" fine, but what about being arrested without warrant, that is what I am unsure about. What is the extent or exceptions (if any)?

If the police arrest a person who has just committed a crime say a purse snatching, no they do not need a warrant to arrest that person. There are other cases where there is no warrant necessary such as a DUI or DWI arrest. Just because the police arrest a person they do not need a warrant 100% of the time. Happens every day of the week in every county in every state.

Apparently you are not just asking this question as an "aside". You definitely are afraid of something otherwise you would not have asked this question.

I'm no lawyer, I have only general knowledge. But I think a warrant applies more to a search or surveillance of a property or activity where the subject would reasonably expect privacy. And as I understand it, there are circumstances where the authorities can even do those things without a warrant.

I don't believe that a warrant and an arrest have all that much to do with each other unless the arrest is the result of the search or surveillance.

The way I understood it, the Amendment says "secure in thier persons" and refers to seizure of "persons" which means-safe from arrest and imprisonment without reason or warrant. The police cannot arrest a person for a misdemeanor that they did not witness, PERIOD, that would be unconstitutional, from what I understood. A felony is different, evidence must be collected in a legal manner in order to obtain a writ or an Arrest Warrant unless the felony is witnessed of course. So I believe the Amendment means both a paper warrant and also cases where it means "witnessed" or probable cause. Is this right?

This is what I'm trying to understand, the more specific meanings and exceptions. And also all the places it applies in everyday life besides what everyone knows as basic "Warrants" (search warrants, arrest warrants). It can get confusing in some places. The far extent of the rights on both sides (officers and courts vs citizens) is what I'm most interested in.

Edit: Also another item I'm very interested in are the parameters of a consented search. I believe that a search with a warrant has limitations, as in a general 1.reason (cause) for the search 2. a written description of areas to be searched. Correct? Is there limits to a consented search? Such as, a person is pulled over, the officer doesn't really have a reason to search the vehicle but they just ask anyway. The person consents. If the officer asks for no particular reason, didn't see anything out of the ordinary or anything in particular he wanted to look at, is he limited in any way? I'm sure there must be limitations, such as if the officer searched the whole car or house and found nothing, he certainly couldn't start taking things apart or dismantling things just to hopefully find something if there's no evidence at all so far of anything, right?

It could depend on the State or the alleged crime or probably a plethora of other variables. You need information from someone with more knowledge of the law than I have.

Hello again, Pass:

I don't know much about law... But, the Fourth Amendment only protects you against illegal search. The Fifth Amendment is the one that protects you against illegal arrest... It's called "due process of law". You can't be arrested without it.

Here's the deal on that. If a cop observes illegal behavior, he can arrest you. If a court issues a warrant, he can arrest you. If somebody else has observed illegal behavior and is willing to swear to it, a cop can arrest you. Those are the only times you can be arrested.

excon

No in fact I would guess most arrests or at least a large number are done without a warrant, I think I only arrested one person with a warrant the entire time I was a officer, most were done at the scene of the crime. They were arrested and had due process at the first hearing before the judge.

And even for searches, you can search the part of the car within view, you can search a area for officer safety around the area of the suspect.

If you have an arrest warrant you can search areas of the home where a person could be hiding. And when doing so, if you find in plain sight other things they can be used.

You can also enter if you have belief a crime is going on.

But no obsolute what so ever

How about some background on the situation?



Read any of her other posts and it will all fall into place.

How long does a person have a troll alert and keep trolling before (another) suspension is issued?

Read any of her other posts and it will all fall into place.

How long does a person have a troll alert and keep trolling before (another) suspension is issued?

Judy - Already read and responded to this person. Just wanted to see what other kind of "problems" they've gotten themselves into. Just bubble gum for the mind, I guess.

There is no background, it's just a question. It's a 4th Amendment right, so I think it should be an absolute defense, but I do not know if it is.

I've heard of cases where a person/property was illegally searched and evidence gathered without warrant was inadmissable and as a result cases are dropped. I am asking if this applies as a general rule (well, of course it's a general rule, it's in the Constitution!!), not just with physical evidence. As in, if a person is arrested PERIOD, no matter what for, for an unwarranted reason, is the arrest unconstitutional and shoulod the charges be dropped?

... are you kidding? No wonder you have so many legal issues. You seem to take the law and twist it into your own idea until it's no longer recognizable in its original form.

If everybody needed a warrant to be put out on them prior to being arrested, the jails wouldn't be overcrowded. A "right to a warrant" is not part of our Constitution - never has been, never will be.

The 4th Amendment guards us against unreasonable searches and seizures. This means the police can't just show up at your home and start digging through your dresser drawers without your consent. The warrant allows them to do so without your consent.

Like excon already said, if the cops saw/know you broke the law, they don't need a warrant.

"Unreasonable Searches and Siezures"-"siezures of persons" means arrest, doesn't it? That's what I thought it meant, is that wrong?

I do personally know of 2 people who used Constitutional Law in their defense, one used this 4th Amendment and the other used the 6th Amendment. Other than the police and courts screwing up, the people were clearly guilty of what they had been charged with and the charges were quite serious as well. I know of the 2 people and I've heard/read about others, it's just an area of law that interests me highly, nothing to do at all with my personal life! The 2 "issues" I have I do not believe are at all unconstitutional or unlawful as far as how the police acted. One incident (pistol incident) I am quite unhappy with how the police acted, but I do not think they acted in any kind of way that could be considered or proven to be unlawful in a court, and my lawyer did not say anything about that either so this has nothing to do with me personally. Just a subject I have high interest in and wanted opinions on esp from someone who has personal experience with it which is why I asked here.

Fr Chuck, do you recall ever losing a case (or an arrest, or whatever) under Constitutional law?

"Unreasonable Searches and Siezures"-"siezures of persons" means arrest, doesn't it? That's what I thought it meant, is that wrong?

I do personally know of 2 people who used Constitutional Law in their defense, one used this 4th Amendment and the other used the 6th Amendment. Other than the police and courts screwing up, the people were clearly guilty of what they had been charged with and the charges were quite serious as well. I know of the 2 people and I've heard/read about others, it's just an area of law that interests me highly, nothing to do at all with my personal life!! The 2 "issues" I have I do not believe are at all unconstitutional or unlawful as far as how the police acted. One incident (pistol incident) I am quite unhappy with how the police acted, but I do not think they acted in any kind of way that could be considered or proven to be unlawful in a court, and my lawyer did not say anything about that either so this has nothing to do with me personally. Just a subject I have high interest in and wanted opinions on esp from someone who has personal experience with it which is why I asked here.

Fr Chuck, do you recall ever losing a case (or an arrest, or whatever) under Constitutional law?

How are you managing to miss the word "unreasonable" after typing/copying & pasting it numerous times? If the police know that you are violating the law and have reasonable grounds, they do not need a warrant to arrest you!

Time to close the thread. OP has gotten her answer but wants to keep arguing with herself about what the law is/isn't.

>Thread Closed<