Week 4 - Search and Seizure Part 2 (warrantless) - Case Doctrines / Concepts Flashcards
“Superior order” cannot, of course, countermand the Constitution. The fact that the petitioners were suspected of the Climaco killing did not excuse the constitutional short-cuts (zona) the respondents took.
Alih et al., vs. Maj. Gen. Gastro et al., GR L-69401
The Fourth Amendment (right against unreasonable searches and seizures) do not extend to searches outside the territorial jurisdiction of the US.
US v Verdugo-Urquidez
Once a lawful arrest was effected, the police may undertake a protective search of the passenger compartment and containers in the vehicle which are within petitioner’s grabbing distance regardless of the nature of the offense. This satisfied the two-tiered test of an incidental search: (i) the item to be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control and (ii) the search was contemporaneous with the arrest.
Padilla v CA GR 121917
What is the two-tiered test of an incidental search?
The two-tiered test of an incidental search: (i) the item to be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control and (ii) the search was contemporaneous with the arrest. [Padilla v CA GR 121917]
What are the valid warrantless arrests?
Rule 113 Sec. 5. (1) in flagrante delicto; (2) hot pursuit; (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. [People v Chua Ho San GR 12822]
[A] valid arrest must precede the search. The process cannot be reversed. “In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is questioned in a large majority of these cases, e.g. whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search. In this instance, the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made – the process cannot be reversed.”
People v Chua Ho San GR 12822
When is an arrest valid?
An arrest is valid if (1) executed by virtue of a warrant; or (2) executed without a warrant but falls under Rule 113 Sec. 5
When is an arrest with a warrant invalid?
(1) when there is no probable cause in the warrant of arrest; (2) when it does not particularly describe the person or persons to be seized, mere unidentified subject.
In People v. De Lara, we held: “A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the prison of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made.”
We have previously held that warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. Moreover, “the individual being arrested may be frisked for concealed weapons that may be used against the arresting officer and all unlawful articles found in his person, or within his immediate control may be seized.”
OCA v Judge Barron, 1998.
There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee’s person and the area “within his immediate control” – construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or detructible evidence.
There is no comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs– or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant.
Chimel v. California
There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee’s person and the area “within his immediate control” – construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or detructible evidence.
There is no comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs– or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant.
Chimel v. California
The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search under the aforequoted provision (Rule 126 Sec 12 now 13), the same must be limited to and circumscribed by, the subject, time, and place of arrest. As to subject, the warrantless search is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect, and things that may be seized from him are limited to “dangerous weapons” or “anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.”
[…]
With respect to the time and place of the warrantless search allowed by law, it must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. Stated otherwise, to be valid, the search must have been conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested.
J. Cuevas, concurring and dissenting opinion in Nolasco v. Pano (Decision 1985; overturned by MR 1987)
Stop and frisk search. “Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.” (Valmonte vs. De Villa) […] The probable cause (in this case) is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.
Posadas v. CA and People GR No 89139, Aug 2 1990
Is probable cause required in conducting “stop and frisk” searches?
No. In the case of Malacat v CA the Court cited Terry v. Ohio in saying that “while probable cause is not required to conduct a ‘stop and frisk,’ it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a ‘stop and frisk.’ A genuine reasons must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that he person detained has weapons concealed about him. [Malacat v CA GR 123595]
What interest does the “stop and frisk” search serve?
A “stop and frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. [Malacat v CA GR 123595]
What is the exception to the general rule that a valid warrantless arrest must precede the warrantless search?
In Aparente v. People, the Court cited the doctrine in the case of Tudtud. According to the Court, the doctrine in Tudtud which stated that arrest must precede the search was qualified: “It is significant to note that the search in question preceded the arrest. Recent jurisprudence holds that the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.”
Thus, where a warrantless search preceded a warrantless arrest but was substantially contemporaneous with it, what must be resolved is whether or not the police had probable cause for the arrest when the search was made.
When may a warrantless search precede the warrantless arrest?
When the warrantless search is contemporaneous with the valid warrantless arrest. Thus what must be resolved is does the police have porable cause to arrest the person when the search was made. [Aparente v People]
Where will the arresting officer conduct the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs?
It depends on whether the seizure was effected with a search warrant or not. If a search warrant was served, done at the exact same place that the search warrant is served. In case of warrantless seizures, done “at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is applicable.”
What are the two elements for a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto?
For a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, “two element must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or she] has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. [Veridiano v People GR 200370 citing Coaged]
Are law enforcers required to witness the crime actually be committed in cases of warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 5 (b)?
No. Law enforcers need not personally witness the commission of a crime. However, they must have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating that the person sought to be arrested committed it. [Veridiano v People]
Is probable cause required to effect a warrantless search under the “stop and frisk”?
No. Probable cause is not required in “stop and frisk” search. However, a “stop and frisk” search cannot be validated on the basis of a suspicion or a hunch. Law enforcers must have a genuine reason to believe, based on their experience and particular circumstances of each case, that criminal activity may be afoot. Reliance on one (1) suspicious activity alone, or none at all, cannot produce a reasonable search. [Veridiano v People]
What are the valid warrantless searches under law and jurisprudence?
The following are recognized instances of permissible warrantless searches laid down in jurisprudence:
- (1) a “warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest,”
- (2) search of “evidence in plain view,
- (3) “search of a moving vehicle,”
- (4) “consented warrantless search[es],”
- (5) “customs search,”
- (6) “stop and frisk,” and
- (7) “exigent and emergency circumstances.” [Veridiano v People citing People v Cogaed]
Checkpoints per se are not invalid. They are allowed in exceptional circumstances to protect the lives of individuals and ensure their safety. They are also sanctioned in cases where the government survival is in danger. Considering that routine checkpoints intrude “on [a] motorist’s right to ‘free passage’” to a certain extent, they must be “conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists.” The extent of routine inspections must be limited to a visual search. Routine inspections do not give law enforcers carte blanche to perform warrantless searches.
Veridiano v People GR 200370
To what extent can police officers conduct a search of a moving vehicle?
Limited to a visual search only. In Valmonte v. De Villa, this Court clarified that “[f]or as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable search[es].” Thus, a search where an “officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle, or flashes a light therein” is not unreasonable. [Veridiano v People]
