In the essence of lawfully securing the ability to invade and search someone else’s property to look for evidence of a crime, two approaches have been examined. One being the totality of circumstance approach which states that all facts and circumstances in the given situation should be looked at in each case individually, meaning that the whole picture needs to be examined in order to determine if there is probable cause to enter someone’s property for searches and seizures; the other approach being the Aguilar-Spinelli two pronged test, which was developed in Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. United States and the two requirements were that, “The magistrate must be informed of the reasons to support the conclusion that such an informant is
…show more content…
This test was abandoned in Illinois v. Gates by the Supreme Court, and was replaced with the totality of circumstance standard, which in argument is superior and is better in determining probable cause for searches and seizures. The totality of circumstance approach makes it easier for law enforcement to get issued warrants because it has no guidelines built in, it looks at each case individually and based on the facts and circumstances it determines if there’s probable cause for grounds of a warrant. A judge can look at everything to determine if probable cause is present, they aren’t limited to two specific parts. In the Aguilar-Spinelli test, two things had to be looked at before a warrant could be issued, and if they were not present there could be no warrant, which made it harder for warrants to be issued to police officers. In addition, this led to people getting away with crimes, because even though there were circumstances which led law enforcement to believe there was criminal activity taking place, according to the test there were no grounds for a warrant, such as in the case of Spinelli. In Spinelli, there were circumstances such as the observations of law enforcement officers and a tip that lead the police to believe that Spinelli was involved in illegal
This test was abandoned in Illinois v. Gates by the Supreme Court, and was replaced with the totality of circumstance standard, which in argument is superior and is better in determining probable cause for searches and seizures. The totality of circumstance approach makes it easier for law enforcement to get issued warrants because it has no guidelines built in, it looks at each case individually and based on the facts and circumstances it determines if there’s probable cause for grounds of a warrant. A judge can look at everything to determine if probable cause is present, they aren’t limited to two specific parts. In the Aguilar-Spinelli test, two things had to be looked at before a warrant could be issued, and if they were not present there could be no warrant, which made it harder for warrants to be issued to police officers. In addition, this led to people getting away with crimes, because even though there were circumstances which led law enforcement to believe there was criminal activity taking place, according to the test there were no grounds for a warrant, such as in the case of Spinelli. In Spinelli, there were circumstances such as the observations of law enforcement officers and a tip that lead the police to believe that Spinelli was involved in illegal