 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Clark12/11/1975
tive assertion, the trial court was in the best position to assess the time required to obtain a search warrant in that judicial district in view of the hour the crime was committed and to take judicial notice thereof, and we are in no position to overturn that determination here. Further, the fact that the boots were dry when offered in evidence is not relevant to the issue of whether the officers were constitutionally permitted to search for this evidence in their investigation in order to determine its physical condition at a time shortly after the crime was committed.
As to the first contention, in Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed. 2d 409, while the Supreme Court admonished that "only in a few specifically established and well delineated situations . . . may a warrantless search of a dwelling withstand constitutional scrutiny, even though the authorities have probable cause to conduct it," citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed. 2d 908, the Court indicated in dictum that one of the "well delineated situations" would exist when the evidence seized by the officers was "in the process of
destruction." In Schmerber the Court upheld a police officer's order to hospital authorities to draw a blood sample from a defendant arrested for driving under the influence on the basis that the evidence would likely disappear during the period of delay necessary to obtain a search warrant since the percentage of alcohol in the blood diminishes after consumption thereof ceases. Then, in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 43 L.Ed. 2d 570, (decided after defendant's brief was filed in the present appeal), the Court decreed that a state may not impose "greater restrictions as a matter of federal constitutional law when this Court specifically refrains from imposing them." (emphasis supplied) In view of the Court's pronouncement in Oregon v. Hass, supra, and in view of the Court's analysis of the exceptions to the warrant requirement in Vale, we must necessarily conclude that the Court has refrained from limiting the "exigent circumstances" doctrine to recovery of evidence that may be lost or destroyed through efforts of the suspect or someone on his behalf.
Nor do we find any basis in other recent decisions of the Supreme Court decided since Vale for concluding that exceptions to the warrant requirement are to receive a strict interpretation at present. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed. 2d 427; Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed. 2d 456; United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 388, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed. 2d 561. Rather, we believe that the test in a given case now is actually one of the reasonableness of the officer's conduct in relation to the circumstances as they appear at the time the search is conducted. Cf. United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed. 2d 771. Accordingly, where, as here: (1) The officers have probable cause to conduct a search; and (2) at the time probable cause appears, the circumstances confronting the officers are such that it reasonably appears that the physicial condition of evidence having probative value will not be ascertainable if the investigation is delayed in order to obtain a search warrant, then a warrantless search and seizure are permissible. Likewise, testimony as to the observed state of evidence discovered in that search is admissible.
In our jurisdiction, the "exigent circumstances" doctrine has been approved and held to authorize a warrantless search when it reasonably appears that evidence may be removed or destroyed. See, e.g., People v. Mathis, 189 C
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|