• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/23

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

23 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Mackintosh v Stott

no search & admissible as voluntarily handed over drugs

Graham v Orr

"checking" to see if something in car = search & INADMISSIBLE

Howard v HMA

looking "out of curiousity" & not for criminality = NOT a search & admissible

For drugs

s23 Misuse Drugs Act 1971

For weapons

s47-50 Criminal Law (Consolidation) Scotland Act 1995

Houston v Carnegie

RC to suspect accused seen in public with drug dealer? NO

HMA v B

Can another person's suspicion (ie superior officer) satisfy the RC test? NO

Ireland v Russell

Info on suspect must not be too old otherwise no RC

Cooper v Buchanan

Power to search car includes passengers when RC to suspect the driver

Mackintosh v Stott

Rules on RC do not apply to public - ONLY to police

When is search warrant required?

Search of premises i.e. house/business


INVASIVE personal searches


warrant granted only where judge thinks RC to suspect

HMA v Baillie

Warrant not required where URGENT situation & MINIMAL INVASION of privacy

HMA v Cumminggg

4 errors. Blank space & missing constable name proved FATAL ERRORS = INVALID warrant

Bulloch v HMA

exact date not specified on warrant = INVALID due to 14 day limit on it

HMA v Bell

Signature middle and not end of warrant = FATAL = INVALID

Paterson v Thomson

"Glasgow" city not on suspect's address = still VALID

HMA v Turnbull

police should've got warrant for extra client documents seized during search as NO URGENCY


authorities did not stumble upon "plainly incriminating" evidence

Leckie v Milne

during search of home, found articles alleged to have been stolen from school.


Search = RANDOM


Warrant = EXCEEDED

Burke v Wilson

discovery of obscene videos during valid search for non-classified vids held ACCIDENTAL = ADMISSIBLE

McAvoy v Jessop

Different bedsit (at same address) to one specified in W was searched = unlawful search

Guthrie v Hamilton

Warrant to search property & anyone in it


- was search of accused on doorstep legal? YES


- obiter: suspect could've been searched anyone as officer held RC to suspect

Types of searches

1) Property Searches


2) Searches of Person

Miller v Jamieson

RC need not be precise


General suspicion can be enough