11/19/2023 0 Comments Worst supreme court decisions griggsConstitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Proof. Officer testimony can also establish the existence of a standard procedure and show that the search was conducted in accordance with that procedure. A written inventory search policy is recognized as the best means by which to prove the existence and requirements of a standardized procedure, but there is no constitutional requirement that inventory policies be established in writing. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Proof. The State can generally meet its burden by proving the inventory search was conducted pursuant to reasonable standardized procedures governing inventory searches. It is the State’s burden to show a search falls within the inventory search exception, and a failure of proof on the State’s behalf requires a finding that the search suffered from constitutional infirmities. A reasonable inventory search policy has two key features: it must be designed to produce an inventory and it must limit officer discretion regarding when and what to search. Only reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith will satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Police Officers and Sheriffs. The individual police officer must not be allowed so much latitude that inventory searches are turned into a purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of crime. A standardized policy or procedure governing inventory searches should be designed to produce an inventory. Criminal Law: Search and Seizure: Police Officers and Sheriffs. The reason for requiring inventory searches to be regulated by standardized criteria is that an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. Inventory searches conducted according to established policy are reasonable. 85 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. Postarrest inventory searches are considered reasonable because they serve at least three governmental caretaking functions unrelated to criminal investigation: (1) protecting the owner’s property while it remains in police custody, (2) protecting the police against claims that they lost or stole the property, and (3) protecting police from potential danger. Search and Seizure: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Arrests. Postarrest inventory searches are constitutionally permissible, and the propriety of such searches is judged by the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Arrests. The warrantless search exceptions Nebraska has recognized include: (1) searches undertaken with consent, (2) searches under exigent circumstances, (3) inventory searches, (4) searches of evidence in plain view, and (5) searches incident to a valid arrest. Searches without a valid warrant are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established and welldelineated exceptions. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination. In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Motions to Suppress: Appeal and Error. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library 08:33 AM CST - 84 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |