Police use a general warrant to search a suspect's home for a stolen television set. Police go through the entire house and do not find a television set. However, in the suspect's back bedroom in a small dresser drawer that is closed, open opening the small drawer, police find a line of cocaine on a small piece of glass mirror. Police immediately arrest the suspect. The suspect argues the arrest violates their 4th Amendment rights because the original warrant was not specific in nature, and mentioned nothing about cocaine or where to search for cocaine in their house. Is the suspect correct in this specific scenario their 4th Amendment rights have been violated?

Question

Social Studies

Jared Bradford

29 August, 05:29

Police use a general warrant to search a suspect's home for a stolen television set. Police go through the entire house and do not find a television set. However, in the suspect's back bedroom in a small dresser drawer that is closed, open opening the small drawer, police find a line of cocaine on a small piece of glass mirror. Police immediately arrest the suspect. The suspect argues the arrest violates their 4th Amendment rights because the original warrant was not specific in nature, and mentioned nothing about cocaine or where to search for cocaine in their house. Is the suspect correct in this specific scenario their 4th Amendment rights have been violated?

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Chace · Answer 1

you are extremely correct your 4th amendment has been violated because when he came in the house to search for a TV set that's what the warrant stated if they had found cocaine in a drawer that a TV set with not even fit in violate your 4th amendment because the Warren specifically stated that they were looking for a TV set but found cocaine instead that boy is all evidence unless they came in with a warrant for cocaine