 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. State2/4/1999
life and property; (2) the primary motivation for the search must not be an intent to arrest and seize the evidence; and (3) some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, must associate the emergency with the area or place searched. Consistent with these basic elements the circuit court found the fact that the officers had been informed that Edith was burned and lying on the bathroom floor created an emergency situation. The officers entered the house and rendered necessary assistance to Edith in response to the emergency situation. Additionally, when Officer Landrum first walked through the premises he was still operating under the emergency situation. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1972). He was walking through the house to determine whether the house was still on fire and if anyone else needed assistance.
. It must be determined whether the second and the third walk through the house and the seizure of the evidence were legally justified. Where an officer enters a residence under an emergency situation he may seize any evidence in plain view during the course of emergency activities. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 (1978). The circuit court found that all evidence seized was in plain view when Officer Landrum initially walked through the house. However, " hether a subsequent entry is detached from an initial exigency and warrantless entry or is a continuation of the lawful initial entry can be determined only in light of the facts and circumstances of each case." Smith, 419 So. 2d at 573 (quoting La Fournier v. State, 280 N.W.2d 746, 750 (Wis. 1979)).
. Once again citing Smith, the circuit court found that Officer Landrum was justified in returning to the house and taking pictures of those items which he had noticed in 'plain view' on his first trip through the house. After Officer Landrum's initial walk through the house he left the house to go search for Taylor. He was only gone for a short time. He returned after failing to locate Taylor and went through the house a second time, this time taking pictures as he went. The circuit court's findings in regards to the second walk through were legally and factually sound.
. The circuit court found that the third walk through the house and the seizure of the items were "continuations of the original plain view scene of these evidentiary items." " warrantless search must be 'strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.'" Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25-26 (1968)). Smith in upholding additional officers coming into the defendant's home and seizing items the original officers had observed in 'plain view', stated:
"From the time of their initial entry, the officers of the Jackson Police Department were engaged in only one search. That search had only one goal: locating [the victim] (and assisting her, if not too late). The actions of [the officer] and other members of the mobile crime lab (after the re-entry of the apartment) were merely to effectuate the physical seizure of articles in plain view which [the officers] would have been able to seize had not the circumstances been so "exigent". There was no unwarranted delay in time, nor was there any expansion of the scope of the search. The fact that the actual physical taking of the items into the custody of the police was effectuated by an evidence technician who was trained to preserve the evidentiary value of the objects, rather than by the first officers to view the objects, is not significant." Smith, 419 So. 2d at 572.
. Captain Spears testified that he arrived on the scene approximately forty-five minutes after Officers Lossett and Landrum. Similarly, in Smith those who seized
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|