Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
I believe Fowler is trying to argue that since the police knew they had him as a suspect in the DUI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.....the police should have obtained a warrant to knock on his door and collect evidence. Since they didn't have a warrant he is arguing that it was an unreasonable search, and therefore any evidence obtained from the questioning including the breath sample should not be allowed as evidence.
|
I dont buy that for several reasons:
1) Obtain a warrant for what? They did not have reasonable grounds the any evidence of a crime would be in the house and further, they did not have reasonable grounds to even arrest Fowler at that point. Both are necessary for a warrant.
2) Attending Fowler's residence to conduct an investigation was valid. They did not know he was in the residence and upon opening the door Fowlers indictia of impairment was readily apparent through questions used to conduct the investigation.
I think what is important is that courts decide whether police actions are justified or not. Police must stop an investigation and inform an accused of their charter rights upon forming reasonable grounds. The real issue is that reasonable grounds is not defined in the criminal code and varies from person to person and officer to officer. It is then up to the court to determine whether the officers actions were justified and in good faith and if the actions would put the administration of justice in disrepute.