8/14/2019 Constitutional Law II - Search and seizure - Cases No.
54 & 55
1/2
54 VALE VS LOUISIANA
FACTS:
The officers got arrest warrant for the defendant (referring to
Vale). They then went to the
defendant's house where they saw the defendant making a drug
deal. The officers arrested the
defendant outside his house and then the officers went inside
the house and in the back room,
where they found drugs. The defendant was convicted and now he
appeals and argues that the
evidence obtained in the house was result of an unlawful search.
The Supreme Court of Lousianaaffirmed the conviction by ruling that
the search of the house was incident to a lawful arrest.
ISSUE:
Was the search of the back room of the house incident to a
lawful arrest?
HELD: No
RD: The court ruled that a search is incident to a lawful arrest
"only if it is substantially
contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate
vicinity of the arrest." The
court ruled that since the defendant was arrested outside his
house, the back room of the house
was not within the immediate vicinity of the arrest and also
since the officers did not haveexigent circumstances, or the
consent of the defendant, they had no right to search the
house.
The conviction was reversed.
55 NOLASCO VS PANO
FACTS:
The case at bar is for the motion for partial reconsideration of
both petitioners and
respondents of the SCs decision that the questioned search
warrant by petitioners is null and
void, that respondents are enjoined from introducing evidence
using such search warrant,
but such personalities obtained would still be retained, without
prejudice to petitioner
Aguilar-Roque. Respondents contend that the search warrant is
valid and that it should be
considered in the context of the crime of rebellion, where the
warrant was based.
Petitioners on the other hand, on the part of petitioner
Aguilar-Roque, contend that a lawful
search would be justified only by a lawful arrest. And since
there was illegal arrest of
Aguilar-Roque, the search was unlawful and that the
personalities seized during the illegal
search should be returned to the petitioner. The respondents, in
defense, concede that the
search warrants were null and void but the arrests were not.
ISSUE: WON the articles seized were illegally obtained.
HELD: Yes.
RD: "Any evidence obtained in violation of this . . . section
shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding" (Sec. 4[2]). This constitutional
mandate expressly adopting the
exclusionary rule has proved by historical experience to be the
only practical means of
enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable
searches and seizures by
outlawing all evidence illegally seized and thereby removing the
incentive on the part of state
and police officers to disregard such basic rights. What the
plain language of the
Constitution mandates is beyond the power of the courts to
change or modify. All the articles
