Week 3 - Search and Seizure Case Doctrines Flashcards
People v Marti GR No 81561 doctrine re: rights against unreasonable searches (or Constitution) cannot be invoked against acts of private individuals
If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
Katz v US doctrine re: Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements, overheard without any “technical trespass under … local property law.”
Should the property seized be owned by the person against whom search warrant is directed?
No. In Burgos v Chief of Staff, the SC held: “The above rules (Rule 126 Sec 2) does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against howm the search warrant is directed. It may or may not be owned by him. In fact, under subsection [b] of the above-quoted Section 2, one of the properties that may be seized is stolen property. Necessarily, stolen property must be owned by one other than the person in whose possession it may be at the time of the search and seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized. [Burgos v Chief of Staff]
What is the definition of probable cause for a search warrant?
Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. [Burgos v Chief of Staff; People v Estrada]
What is the requirement when the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials?
When the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the application and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice. [Burgos v Chief of Staff]
Are general warrants valid?
No. In Stanford v State of Texas, the search warrant which authorized the search for ‘books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings and other written instruments concerning the Communist Parties of Texas, and the operations of the Community Party in Texas,” was declared void by the U.S. Supreme Court for being too general. In like manner, directions to “seize any evidence in connection with the violation of SDC 13-3703 (law) or otherwise” have been held too general and that portion of a search warrant - which authoirzed the seizure of any “paraphernalia which could be used to violate Sec. 54-197 of the Connecticut General Statutes [the statute dealing with the crime of consspiracy]” was held to be a general warrang and therefore invalid. [Burgos v Chief of Staff]
In which cases are warrantless searches permissible?
(1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) Seizure of evidence in “plaing view”[…]; (3) Search of a moving vehicle […]; (4) Consented warrantless search; (5) Customs search; (6) Stop and Frisk; and (7) Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. [People v Aruta]
What are the elements for the application of the “plain view” doctrine?
The elements of the “plain view” doctrine are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. [People v. Aruta]
What are the requisites for a valid waiver of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches?
A valid waiver of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the right to be waived existed; (2) the person waiving it had knowledge, actual or constructive, thereof; and (3) he or she had an actual intention to relinquish the right. [Manalili v People]
Explanation of a stop and frisk search.
In Terry v. Ohio, a stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapons: “Where a police officer observes an unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identified himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully liited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.” [Manalili v People]
People v CA doctrine re: place of search
It is neither fair nor licit to allow police officers to search a place different from that stated in the warrant on the claim that the place actually searched – although not specified in the warrant – is exactly what they had in view when they applied for the warrant and had demarcated in their supporting evidence. What is material in determining the validity of a search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their thoughts, or had presented in the proofs they submitted to the court issuing the warrant. [People v CA GR 126379, 1998; cited in PICOP v Asuncion]
Columbia Pictures Inc v CA (1994) doctrine re: validity of search warrants in cases of pirated video tapes
A basic requirement for the validity of search warrants, in cases of this nature [pirated video tapes], is the presentation of the master tapes of copyrighted films from which pirated films are supposed to have been copied.
What are the requisites of a valid search warrant?
In Paper Industries Corp. of the Phil. v Asuncion, the Court stated that the requisites of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such presence is determined personally by the judge; (3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.
Are mere affidavits sufficient to establish probable cause?
No. In PICOP v Asuncion (citing Pendon v CA and Roan v Gonzales): “Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take the depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declaration are false.”
What is the doctrine of best evidence in the application for search warrants?
In PICOP v Asuncion, citing People v Estrada, it was held: :The facts and circumstances that would show probable cause must be the best evidence that could be obtained under the circumstances. The introduction of such evidence is necessary in cases where the issue is the existence of the negative ingredient of the offense charged – for instance, the absence of a license required by law, as in the present case – and such evidence is within the knowledge and control of the applicant who could easily produce the same. But if the best evidence could not be secured at the time of the application, the paplicant must show a justifiable reason therefor during the examination by the judge.
