Case Briefing

It is imperative to note that the police officers searched the petitioner’s house without a search and seizure warrant. The officers searched the entire house including a small workshop and the master bedroom where the petitioners wife was asked to open the drawers and to physically move the items of the drawer from side to side in order to permit them to view all the content of the drawer that would have come from robbery. After finishing their search, the three police officers seized some items especially coins and several tokens, models and a few other items.
During the petitioner’s trial on robbery charges, items seized from his home were presented over objection or opposition that they have been taken or seized unconstitutionally because the police officers lacked a search and seizure warrant. The petitioners conviction was affirmed by the appellate courts in California which stated that despite their acceptance of the petitioners contention that the arrest warrant was not valid, and that since the arresting police officers had received the arrest warrant in good faith. The court held that since in any case they had credible information to constitute a probable cause for the petitioner’s arrest, the arrest was lawful. Further, the court asserted that the search and seizure was lawful as incident to a valid arrest (Hubbert 32-4). From this summary, the appellate courts held that the police officers were justified in searching the petitioner’s house despite them lacking a valid search and seizure warrant on the basis that it has been event to a valid or suitable arrest.
Supposing that the arrest of the petitioner was valid, the search of the petitioner’s house without a valid search warrant is unconstitutional and cannot be justified as event to that arrest. A police officer arresting someone can search him or her to discover and acquire weapons