State V. Keyser Case Summary

539 Words 3 Pages
There have been many cases where private security officers searched someone and found illegal contraband which that person was later for being in possession of that contraband. State v. Keyser is a case where a cashier searched a box a customer was about to leave the store with and found $147.98 unpaid item inside. The security guard who was working in the store at that time escorted the defendant in the back. The security officer calls the cops and the defendant was arrested and later charged with theft by deception. The defendant tried to suppress evidence of the item he was intending to steal. His argument was that his fourth and fourteen amendment rights was violated due to the illegal search that was conducted by the cashier. His motion …show more content…
Zelinski is a case about a private security store detective observe a defendant put unpaid items in her purse and she wore one of the item. The defendant was approach by the store security officials and was later searched by them. After searching the defendant they found an illegal substance within her possession. They call the cops and the defendant was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of heroin (Stanford Law School, 2009). The defendant tried to appeal the case stating that the security officers violated her rights according to the 4th and 14th amendments by detaining and searching her illegally. The defendant also tried to throw have the charges drop for being in possession of the illegal substance. Her motion was denied because the private security officials have the same rights as private citizens when it comes to enforcing citizen’s arrest by detaining a suspect. “The People contend that the evidence is nevertheless admissible because the search and seizure were made by private persons. They urge that Burdeau v. McDowell (1921) 256 U.S. 465 [65 L.Ed. 1048, 41 S.Ct. 574, 13 A.L.R. 1159], holding that Fourth Amendment proscriptions against unreasonable searches and seizures do not apply to private conduct, is still good law and controlling” (Stanford Law School,

Related Documents