Illegal Search Vs Illegal Search

After a person is arrested, there are steps and processes that must be followed. One big part of the process includes searches and seizures. What in particular has to be noted when it comes to searches are the principles behind illegal searches, what can constitute a legal and illegal search, and when the lines can be blurred between the two. Searches are necessary to gather evidence. They play big roles in any investigation, but they must be conducted correctly. If not, than the evidence cannot be used. First, to be covered is the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. They each cover the use of evidence collected in illegal searches. The exclusionary rule “holds that evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trail” and “that incriminating information must be seized according to constitutional …show more content…
A case that helped define these lines was Chimel v. California that dealt with “both arrest and search activities by local law enforcement officers” (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 130). Chimel was arrested in his home, in connection with the robbery of a coin shop, where coins from the robbery were found through a search at the time of his arrest (Schmalleger, 2014). Even though he was convicted of the robbery, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the search “became invalid when it went beyond the arrested person and the area subject to the person’s ‘immediate control’” (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 130). Because the coins were not found on or in the immediate area as Chimel and the officers did not have a warrant to search the residence, the search was deemed illegal. Chimel v. California laid out the lines for what the officers can search, “valid reasons for conducting the search”, and what makes a search illegal (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 130). This case made the lines clearer and more distinct when it comes to searches to keep important evidence from being thrown