-
122 A.3d 876 District of Columbia Court of Appeals August 6, 2015 No. 13-CM-1173
In addition, the warrant authorizes the police to search for and seize that firearm and any other firearms, ammunition, and related paraphernalia.
Murray, 487 U.S. at 542-43 , 108 S.Ct. 2529 (where trial court made no explicit finding as to whether officers would have obtained warrant to search warehouse if they had not previously entered warehouse without warrant and seen evidence
decision to issue a search warrant authorizing the police to seize the evidence at issue.
-
671 A.2d 442 District of Columbia Court of Appeals February 1, 1996 Nos. 94-CF-1241, 94-CF-1358
than the intrusion required when police hold a car until they can obtain a search warrant.
search without a warrant.
requirement, without considering whether the police could legally conduct the search based on probable cause without a warrant. 9 .
-
391 A.2d 1188 District of Columbia Court of Appeals September 18, 1978 No. 12620
Here, however, the officer immediately ordered the two men out of the car without acquiring additional information.
In upholding the actions of the officer, the Court held “only that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth
Nor can the seizure of evidence be sustained under the plain view exception to the search warrant requirement.
-
558 A.2d 312 District of Columbia Court of Appeals April 28, 1989 No. 84-1643
Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 , 100 S.Ct. 338 , 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979), a case involving the illegal search of a man present at a tavern in which the police were executing a search warrant of the premises, and of the bartender who was suspected
A citizen has as much prerogative to avoid the police as he does to avoid any other person, and his efforts to do so, without more, may not justify his detention. Florida v.
See, e.g., Bennett, supra, 514 A.2d at 414 (appellant and companion “bolted” when police car arrived); Tobias v.
-
49 A.3d 818 District of Columbia Court of Appeals August 9, 2012 No. 12-CO-5
“A search conducted without a warrant is ‘per se unreasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment unless it falls within a few specific and well-established exceptions.” Basnueva v.
Moreover, application of the probable cause standard would render the second prong of Gant superfluous, since law enforcement officers already have the authority to search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe
After the arrest, the police opened a locked briefcase found in the car, and the D.C. Circuit upheld this post-arrest search under Gant .
-
632 A.2d 383 District of Columbia Court of Appeals December 9, 1993 No. 90-CF-304
All of those eases in which we applied Belton , however, involved factual scenarios wherein the police initiated contact with the defendant while he or she was still within the automobile subsequently searched without a warrant
"It is a [fundamental] principle of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that the police may not conduct a search unless they first convince a neutral magistrate that there is probable cause to do so.
United States, 259 A.2d 835, 837 (D.C.1969) (A police officer may arrest an individual for a misdemeanor offense without a warrant if the offense is committed in his presence.); United States v.
-
314 A.2d 464 District of Columbia Court of Appeals January 31, 1974 No. 6758
The narrow issue presented by this appeal may be stated: Did removal of the suspects from their car made unreasonable the search which would have been reasonable had they remained in it?
When the search is made without a warrant, it must be with probable cause or bear some reasonable relationship to the crime for which the arrest is made or to the safety of the officer if it is to come within one of the exceptions
out, in particular, that searches of cars that are constantly movable may make the search of a car without a warrant a reasonable one although the result might be the opposite in a search of a home, a store, or other fixed piece of
-
633 A.2d 378 District of Columbia Court of Appeals November 15, 1993 No. 89-CF-1275
When the circumstances warrant, the police may frisk the suspect or conduct a limited search for weapons of areas within the reach of the suspect for the protection of the officers. United States v.
The requisite ar-ticulable suspicion for the stop can be furnished by an anonymous tip, and the police may stop a suspect after promptly corroborating innocent details of the tip without first observing illegal conduct.
It is no answer to say that the police could have obtained a search warrant, for “[t]he relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable.”
-
395 A.2d 774 District of Columbia Court of Appeals November 15, 1978 No. 9233
Fourth Amendment doctrines state that “a car may be searched or seized without a warrant if there were both exigent circumstances and probable cause to believe that the car will yield contraband or evidence useful for prosecution of
Although the car was immobile when found, Deputy Purdy testified that he did not have sufficient personnel to post a guard around the car until he could obtain a search warrant.
Since the police could have no assurance of continued immobilization without a guard, the circumstances presented a sufficient exigency to search the car without obtaining a warrant. See United States v.
-
168 A.3d 703 District of Columbia Court of Appeals September 21, 2017 No. 15-CF-322
Williams consented only after the police presented her with the following options: the police “would either have to take the purse and put it into police custody until [they] could get a search warrant and then search it or ... she
’s consent to a search may be involuntary where the police, “‘trading on’ a prior Fourth Amendment violation,” have “threatened] to seek a warrant”). 38 And third, although the police officers’ warrantless use of the cell-site simulator
The dissent argues that under the automobile exception, police officers could have searched Mr. Jones’s car without a warrant and seized "any cell phones in it that might have been contraband or evidence of the crime.”
-
144 A.2d 889 District of Columbia Court of Appeals October 2, 1958 No. 2167
No contention is made by appellee that the search of the car without a warrant can be justified on the ground that the officers had probable cause to believe that the car contained that which by law was subject to seizure, such as
Particular stress was placed oh the fact that the car was safely in police custody, that considerable time had passed since the original arrest, and that there was no showing of any necessity for dispensing with a search warrant.
The delay here was at most ten or fifteen minutes ; the search was “substantially contemporaneous.” The car was under appellant’s control, not in the custody of the police. There was no opportunity to apply for a warrant.
-
381 A.2d 614 District of Columbia Court of Appeals December 15, 1977 Nos. 10704, 10757 and 11157
that the prosecution may not bootstrap itself to a legal arrest and resultant conviction by asserting that police relied reasonably on a warrant that never legally existed.
The plain view exception to the search warrant requirement is properly invoked when a police officer has a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he [comes] inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating
We have reviewed this contention carefully and find it to be without merit.
-
597 A.2d 1318 District of Columbia Court of Appeals October 10, 1991 No. 88-678
Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1048-52 , 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3480-82 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (permissible to search automobile which Terry detainee may reenter after release).
Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702-03 , 101 S.Ct. 2587, 2594 , 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981) (officer safety a permissible justification for detaining occupant of premises being searched pursuant to valid search warrant); Pennsylvania v.
" [2] The majority says that Officer Queen could not recall whether the police car was marked or unmarked. Ante at 1319, n. 1. At trial, however, Queen acknowledged that the car was probably unmarked.
-
597 A.2d 884 District of Columbia Court of Appeals September 30, 1991 No. 89-1094
Gomez contended that the police had seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment by ordering him out of the car without probable cause to believe, or artic-ulable basis to suspect, that he had committed an offense.
Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), to complain of the search of a car in which he was a passenger, and that even if he had standing, the facts available to the police were sufficient to raise an articulable
The informant told the police that drugs were being sold in the alley from a car behind a given address. Four minutes later, a car was located where the tipster indicated that it would be, with a second car standing next to it.
-
496 A.2d 592 District of Columbia Court of Appeals August 5, 1985 No. 81-1095
We concluded that: a situation in which persons unfamiliar to the police are parked in a car late at' night in a high crime area does not, without more, present specific, articulable facts warranting suspicion of criminal ac-tivity
“[E]ven though the driver’s flight may not be used to seize the driver (since he may ‘suppress’ his own flight), that flight may still be used” by the police in evaluating whether there are grounds to “seize a companion whose behavior
That the other circumstances, without the flight, are not enough to warrant an articulable suspicion of criminal activity does not mean that the various factors noticed by the police, taken together, are wholly unsuspicious and irrelevant
-
601 A.2d 45 District of Columbia Court of Appeals December 20, 1991 Nos. 87-565, 89-847 and 87-1332
United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), that if the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon probable cause, that is, upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing
its occupants, police had probable cause to search car for pistol in context of a “rapidly moving street occurrence”).
The trial judge did not make expressly clear whether he found that the police had probable cause to search the car for contraband or probable cause to arrest appellants.
-
673 A.2d 603 District of Columbia Court of Appeals March 14, 1996 No. 93-CF-1548
of defendant's car was illegal).
The De Facto Arrest Even a search or seizure carried out pursuant to a proper exception to the warrant requirement is illegal when the search or seizure exceeds the reasonable intrusion necessary under the circumstances.
Summers, supra, 452 U.S. at 700-01 , 101 S.Ct. at 2593-94 , discussed infra, which stands for the different proposition that officers executing a valid search warrant may detain the occupants of the premises while the search is being
-
520 A.2d 255 District of Columbia Court of Appeals March 31, 1987 Nos. 84-610, 84-661 and 84-867
MACK, Associate Judge: Three police officers, armed with a search warrant, seized heroin, cocaine and a loaded pistol from an apartment in Northeast Washington.
I The Government’s Evidence At about 11:45 p.m. on October 16, 1981, three officers of the Metropolitan Police Department executed a search warrant at Apartment Four of a building in Northeast Washington.
The first came in response to an argument by Jones’ counsel that the police officers, upon finding nothing when they arrived to execute the search warrant, “planted” the drugs in the apartment.
-
404 A.2d 911 District of Columbia Court of Appeals July 2, 1979 No. 12776
Thus, consent which is voluntarily given will validate a search and seizure of property effectuated without a warrant and without probable cause. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, 412 U.S. at 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 (1973).
Tampers’ consent to the search of the car registered to his wife was legally sufficient to warrant admitting into evidence the white blanket found in the trunk.
The exigency may arise at *920 any time, and the fact that the police might have obtained a warrant earlier does not negate the possibility of a current situation necessitating prompt police action.”
-
100 A.3d 157 District of Columbia Court of Appeals September 25, 2014 Nos. 13-CO-1299 & 13-CO-1456
*159 McLEESE, Associate Judge: These consolidated appeals arise from two separate incidents but present a common legal question: in what circumstances may police officers search a car for additional evidence after seeing an open
“A search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless it falls within ... specific and well-established exceptions.” Taylor, 49 A.3d at 821 (internal quotation marks omitted).
See Gant, 556 U.S. at 347 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 (police may search car without warrant if there is probable cause to believe car contains evidence of criminal activity).
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.