Criminalistics DB1 Name Class Date Professor Criminalistics DB1 The United Sates Supreme Court has long established the need for law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before searching or seizing evidence. In Mincey v. Arizona and the Michigan v. Tyler the Supreme Court established the need for a search warrant when conducting searches at crimes scenes but there are exceptions to this rule (O’Connor, 2012). Police have several circumstances when a warrantless search may be conducted in one instance if there are exigent circumstances police can seize evidence without a warrant. If police believe the evidence is at threat to be destroyed they can seize the evidence without a warrant. If it is later determined their where no exigent circumstances the evidence could be excluded. Police can also conduct warrantless searches if they have permission to search or if the evidence at the scene is on plain view to the police officer. For example if police arrive at a crime scene and notice a package of drugs sitting on a table by the window they can enter the premises and seizes the drugs because they were left in plain view. When it comes to the crime scene, however, police are restricted in their actions. Police could size evidence in a warrantless search is they chase a police suspect into a building and then search the suspect and locate contraband. The chase must be continuous, however. If the chase from the police does not begin and end continuously, meaning there are stops between the chase, the warrantless search is no longer legal and any evidence will be thrown out. In another scenario police can enter a crime scene and seize evidence if police believe a criminal might escape if police do not make immediate entry or if the police believe the criminal suspect poses a danger to society (Corrigan, 2013). If police do not have information that allows them to reasonably believe the suspect poses a threat to society they cannot conduct the warrantless search. Police officers walk a fine line when they conduct the warrantless search and must have a reasonable belief the evidence at the crime scene could be lost or other exigent circumstances could come into play. If police officers have any question on whether or not they should conduct a warrantless search they should wait and get a warrant. References Corrigan, B. (2013). The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Retrieved August 19, 2014 from http://www.texascrimelaw.com/Warrantless-Searches.html O’Connor, T. (2012). Search and Seizure Guide: Rules, tests, Doctrines, and Exceptions. Retrieved August 19, 2014 from http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3020/3020lect02a.htm Legal Issues Criminalistics IP1 Name Class Date Professor Legal Issues and Constraints at Crime Scene The crime scene yields important evidence pointing to the events surrounding the crime and pointing to the responsible party. Physical evidence is considered the .

1. Criminalistics DB1
Name
Class
Date
Professor
Criminalistics DB1
The United Sates Supreme Court has long established the
need for law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before
searching or seizing evidence. In Mincey v. Arizona and
the Michigan v. Tyler the Supreme Court established the need
for a search warrant when conducting searches at crimes scenes
but there are exceptions to this rule (O’Connor, 2012). Police
have several circumstances when a warrantless search may be
conducted in one instance if there are exigent circumstances

2. police can seize evidence without a warrant. If police believe
the evidence is at threat to be destroyed they can seize the
evidence without a warrant. If it is later determined their where
no exigent circumstances the evidence could be excluded.
Police can also conduct warrantless searches if they have
permission to search or if the evidence at the scene is on plain
view to the police officer. For example if police arrive at a
crime scene and notice a package of drugs sitting on a table by
the window they can enter the premises and seizes the drugs
because they were left in plain view. When it comes to the
crime scene, however, police are restricted in their actions.
Police could size evidence in a warrantless search is they chase
a police suspect into a building and then search the suspect and
locate contraband. The chase must be continuous, however. If
the chase from the police does not begin and end continuously,
meaning there are stops between the chase, the warrantless
search is no longer legal and any evidence will be thrown out.
In another scenario police can enter a crime scene and seize
evidence if police believe a criminal might escape if police do
not make immediate entry or if the police believe the criminal
suspect poses a danger to society (Corrigan, 2013). If police do
not have information that allows them to reasonably believe the
suspect poses a threat to society they cannot conduct the
warrantless search. Police officers walk a fine line when they
conduct the warrantless search and must have a reasonable
belief the evidence at the crime scene could be lost or other
exigent circumstances could come into play. If police officers
have any question on whether or not they should conduct a
warrantless search they should wait and get a warrant.

3. References
Corrigan, B. (2013). The Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution. Retrieved August 19, 2014
from http://www.texascrimelaw.com/Warrantless-
Searches.html
O’Connor, T. (2012). Search and Seizure Guide: Rules, tests,
Doctrines, and Exceptions.
Retrieved August 19, 2014 from
http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3020/3020lect02a.htm
Legal Issues
Criminalistics IP1
Name
Class
Date
Professor

4. Legal Issues and Constraints at Crime Scene
The crime scene yields important evidence pointing to the
events surrounding the crime and pointing to the responsible
party. Physical evidence is considered the impeachable witness
because it provides a physical link from the crime to the suspect
or the crime to the victim and it does not lie, forget, or ignore.
When physical evidence is present at the scene it does not only
need to be preserved for its ultimate collection, the evidence
also has to be protected by a search warrant. There are a few
exceptions to this need for a search warrant before evidence
collection can occur but in a majority of cases it is important to
protect the evidence leally before collecting the evidence.
When police arrive at a crime scene they secure the scene but
do not search for evidence. The lead crime scene investigator
will need to obtain a search warrant in order to ensure the
evidence at the scene. Exceptions to needing a search warrant
include permission from the owner in other words if the owner
of the properly calls to report a crime in their home invite
police in no search warrant is needed. The owner of the private
property has given consent. Next if the search will occur in a
public place a search warrant is not need or if the evidence is
left out in plain view of the criminal investigator.
There are many situations when police should obtain a search
warrant but the rule is if the crime occurred on private property
it is important to either get permission or get a search warrant.
In order for police to obtain a search warrant their needs to be

5. probable cause that evidence will be located where the search
has been requested. In the case of the crime scene obtaining a
search warrant will not be difficult because a crime has
occurred but the court may limit the scope of the search. What
this means is the search may be confined to the area where the
crime occurred and not other parts of the property unless there
is probable cause evidence is located elsewhere on the property.
Legal issues that might arise from not setting a proper perimeter
around the crime scene involve the loss of potential evidence.
For crime scenes and critical incidents, it is always better to
have been initially too big than too small (Foster, 2010). NO
one but police and criminal investigators should be allowed
within the perimeter. When evidence is outside the perimeter it
has not been properly preserved. When evidence is not properly
preserved or managed once the scene has been preserved this
evidence risks forever being lost or if it is not lost it risks
exclusion from the court process. What this means once
evidence is no longer within the control of police or crime scene
investigators the chain of evidence has been broken damaging
the ability of the court to authenticate the evidence.
The chain of evidence or custody refers to a chorological
documentation of evidence from when it is preserved, collected,
transported, and analyzed. When evidence is outside of the
perimeter it is not present to be chronicled in the documentation
making it at risk from being rejected as evidence in the court
process. The court requires documentation from the time the
scene is secured until the evidence is analyzed at the lab any
failure to keep the chain of custody risks the evidence no matter
its importance to the case. A broken chain of custody can result
in evidence being excluded from the court case.
Decisions of the courts restricting admissibility of testimonial
evidence have significantly increased the value of physical
evidence in homicide investigations (Geberth, 2003). At a crime
scene anything and everything is potentially physical evidence
and must be carefully preserved until it can be collected.
Through major Supreme Court decisions, police are restricted in

6. their behavior at the crime scene. These restrictions are
designed to uphold the due process rights of the citizen. When
police illegally search a crime scene when it is on private
property they risk violating a citizens Fourth Amendment right
is a search warrant is not first obtained.
Police and criminal investigators are limited in their actions
when it comes to a crime scene to preserve the due process
rights afforded b the Constitution. Due to the importance of
protecting these rights as well as the importance of properly
collecting evidence it is essential for police officers and
forensic investigator to understand the importance of these
rights. When members of law enforcement violate these rights
through an illegal search they risk the evidence. If the court
finds the evidence has been collected illegally it is subject to
being excluded from the court process. As a result a guilty
offender could go free and a innocent my never get justice.
A mock trial is a tool for criminal investigators that are
required to testify in court. Once the criminal investigator has
conducted the forensic investigation they will be required to
testify about the evidence in a court of law (Turner, 2011). The
mock trial is a tool used to get the criminal investigator
comfortable with testifying in front of the court and providing
evidence clearly and distinctly. When the criminal investigator
is effective the information being supplied to the jury will be
clear and easy to understand. If the criminal investigator is not
comfortable with speaking in front of a jury it could appear he
or she is not knowledgeable about the evidence and steps taken
at the crime scene.
The crime scene investigation is pivotal to the success of any
trial especially when it involves a violent crime involving
physical evidence. How the crime scene investigator approaches
the scene will determine the eligibility of the evidence in a
court of law. In order to protect the evidence a search warrant
should be sought when necessary. Protecting the evidence is
crucial to ensuring the guilty party is found guilty for the crime
they have committed.

7. References
Foster, R. (2010). Seven Crime Scene Fundamentals. Retrieved
August 24, 2014 from
http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/146020-
seven-crime-scene-fundamentals?
Geberth, V. (2003). Practical crime scene investigation: legal
considerations. Practical Homicide
Investigation, 51(5): 2-3
Turner, J. (2011). Legal, Safety and Environmental
Considerations of Crime Scene Cleanup.
Retrieved August 24, 2014 from
http://ezinearticles.com/?Legal,-Safety-and-Environmental-
Considerations-of-Crime-Scene-Cleanup&id=6153549