Criminology

In the given case, the following procedural issues relating to the validity of search and seizure conducted by Fireman Sparky and Officer Snarkle have been observed
Whether or not the consent given by Wally as a third party to Fireman Sparky to look around Billys property was valid to constitute an exception to the general rule for the requirement of a search warrant.   The Court has laid down the general rule that a consent of a third party for search to be conducted over the shared area does not bind another person if the latter has a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, excepted to the rule are special circumstances such as presumed joint authority of the occupants or roommates. Therefore, even if the officer had erred about the existence of joint authority, the search and seizure remains constitutional as long as the mistake is reasonable (Emanuel, 2007). There was a valid consent but the authority of a fireman to conduct search is of questionable legality.

Whether or not the search conducted by Fireman Sparky was a reasonable warrantless search under the plainview doctrine.  No, the search did not meet the requirements of plainview doctrine since the sign was under Billys bed and therefore it is not immediately apparent to the officer making the search (Hall, 2002). Furthermore, as a firefighter, Sparky failed to establish that his presence in the room was legally permitted (Emanuel, 2007).

Whether or not the information provided by Fireman Sparky to Officer Snarkle constituted sufficient probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant for the apartment and a warrant of arrest for Billy.  No, an informants tip does not constitute as an exception for valid warrantless search and seizure. Instead, Officer Snarkle should have just utilized Sparkys testimony in the application for a warrant with a competent judge. However, the reasonable suspicion exception cannot apply because it only allows Officer Snarkle to conduct a search of Billys external clothing for dangerous weapons (Terry v Ohio).

Whether or not Officer Snarkle had the authority to issue the aforementioned warrants if the answer is negative, will the unconstitutionality of the warrants have the effect of Billys acquittal. - No, only a neutral judge can issue a warrant based on probable cause and with sufficient description of place to be searched and objectspersons to be seized. There are limited cases wherein the requirement of probable cause and none is availing in this case. There is no exigent circumstance because there is no indication the Billy intends to abscond or destroy the evidence. Neither can it be said that there is hot pursuit.

Whether or not the evidence obtained in the search are admissible as evidence.  No, the exclusionary rule applies in this case because there was no probable cause in the search and seizure conducted. The sign cards were discovered in violation of Billys Fourth Amendment right.