In a story about the deaths of Rob Reiner and his wife, the New York Times says:
Alan Hamilton, deputy police chief, said the L.A.P.D. was conducting a “death investigation.” He said that investigators were trying to obtain a search warrant for the home
Why do they need a search warrant? It was already deemed a homicide. Wouldn’t that go beyond the minimum requirements for a warrantless search? It’s not just probable cause, it’s an outright crime scene.
Because the 4th Amendment requires a warrant. The police can’t just declare something to be a crime scene and ignore that constitutional requirement.
In exigent circumstances, like a call that someone may have been assaulted in a home, possibly fatally, they can enter to protect life. But once they determine there is no ongoing threat to life or the evidence, they secure the home and seek a warrant.
ETA:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause
I think the OP raises a good question.
But wouldn’t there be obvious probable cause?
If I get pulled over while driving, and the officer smells weed, he has probable cause to search my vehicle.
mmm
Different rules apply to vehicle searches because of exigency. Cars on the side of a busy highway, with officers and the driver getting out, is a risky situation because of traffic.
A house isn’t going anywhere.
Yes, probable cause will be easy to establish. All the more reason to get a warrant.
In the US, vehicles fall under “reduced expectation of privacy”. Probable cause is a lot stricter for homes.
Regarding the 4th Amendment, one could argue that searching the house is not “unreasonable”.
OTOH, if you secure the house and get a warrant, you never have to argue about whether the search was reasonable.
Warrants don’t usually take very long to secure if a judge is presented with any evidence someone was found dead. The delay in this case might just be due to finding a judge on a Sunday evening.
This is an interesting question.
Suppose a pedestrian is murdered on a busy street.
Can’t the police start searching? (If it’s a public place, presumably different rules apply…)
That’s pretty much it. Probable cause at the scene is determined by the officer on the scene using their best judgment. A search warrant goes through a prosecutor and gets approved by a judge. Not argument proof but a lot harder to knock down than one cop on the stand.
Take something like the current Reiner case as a hypothetical. Let’s say the living room is the crime scene. The son is living in the house. Is his living area considered separate from the rest of the residence? Does probable cause cover that or not? Can you do a cursory search or can you go into drawers and closets? Does it cover electronic devices? Without exigent circumstances it is easy to pick holes in any search. The house should be cleared for safety. Make sure no one else is there. Anything in plain view should be noted and seized for evidence. Then the residence should be secured and a warrant obtained. The victims aren’t getting any deader.
It’s not about privacy. It’s about mobility.
automobile exception | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.
Searching what? No warrant needed for public property. Personal property that happens to be in public? Depends on the circumstances.
I would have thought the fact there are multiple bodies in the house (and could be more or even injured survivors) would have been justification to search the house thoroughly without a warrant. iANAL but my understanding is there exceptions for such things (I don’t know if the fact the homeowner was apparently one of the bodies and so kinda gave implied permission, was also a factor)
My reading of the statement in the OP is the LAPD have been much aggrieved by previous cases like OJ Simpson and Phil Spektor, and are now being incredibly conservative when it comes to any evidence related to celebrity cases. They aren’t doing anything that a high paid Hollywood lawyer might be able to pick apart later at trial.
There is no murder scene exemption to the 4th amendment. It has nothing to do with celebrity cases. I don’t remember the Spektor case well enough. For OJ they entered the property under the theory that he may have been another victim. Presumably anything found in plain view during a search for victims would be allowed. Anything further would not. The exigency exception only lasts until the exigent circumstances are over. This explains some of the case law.
That was the premise of the television series “The Closer”. The pilot episode starts with detectives searching the scene of a homicide, and new Deputy Chief Brenda Johnson arrives to tell the detectives that they do NOT automatically have cause to search the detached garages and outbuildings on the property.
It doesn’t even have to be detached buildings. It gets murky when you have multiple adults living in the same house. Can the homeowner give consent to search the room of their 32 year old son? Also some states may have more restrictive rules and caselaw than what the Supreme Court has ruled.
Also figured into an episode of “Adam-12”, in which it had been decided that some drugs which were in plain view but in a different room could not be used as evidence.
Reed found the drugs on his way to lock the back door.
Of course they are outdated now but it’s pretty remarkable how much Adam 12 and Emergency! got right.
As soon as the homeowner dies, there is a new homeowner: whoever is entitled to the house under the deceased’s will. That person has privacy rights protected by the 4th Amendment.
And in the Reiner case apparently the accused lived in the house. His 4th amendment rights don’t go away because a crime was committed.
Thanks that makes sense. Though i’d still bet if this was a random dude who’d stabbed his dad in a crappy apartment in South Central, the LAPD would not be bending over backwards to follow the exact letter of the law (and to publicly do so)