Every country has a constitution on which its laws and basic principles are recorded. The constitution ensures that the government's powers are detailed to prevent the country's citizens from being oppressed by the government while also making them aware of duties and privileges. The constitution consists of 27 amendments that are made to protect the rights of its citizens. Among these is the fourth amendment right that protects against the government's unreasonable searches and seizures of its citizens. The Michigan v Tyler case is centered on a fire that broke out on the 21st night of January 1970 (Michigan v. Tyler, 1978). In this case, the police and fire chief found arson evidence and conducted several examinations without having a warrant or seeking consent from the proprietors. Although they collected evidence critical to the case which was also provided during the trial leading to the incrimination of the furniture store owners, the supreme court held that they had infringed on the citizen's fourth amendment rights (Michigan v. Tyler, 1978). Michigan v Tyler is a case that can help elucidate the provisions of the fourth amendment rights as the respondents were acquitted on the grounds of infringement of the amendment.
The fourth amendment is one of the key amendments that protect the American citizen's rights. The amendment offers protection from unreasonable seizures and searches from the government (United States Courts, n.d). This ensures that individuals have the right to privacy and gives them the right to demand a warrant before letting in any government body to inspect their premises or personal properties. However, the amendment has a restriction on what is defined as being unreasonable searches as it allows these government bodies to consider certain conditions as enough evidence to conduct reasonable searches that can be done without warrants. To determine whether a search and seizure is reasonable, the law considers legitimate government interests like public safety against the intrusion of an individual's fourth amendment rights (United States Courts, n.d). In Michigan v Tyler, the furniture store owners' fourth amendment rights were infringed when the police officers returned to investigate the premises after the reasonable timeline for collecting evidence had elapsed. The police officer had not sought consent nor provided the proprietors with a warrant for conducting the search and seizure of more evidence from the premises.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Fire investigators collect important evidence that are pivotal in arson cases. The first scenario that allows these investigators right of entry is exigent circumstance (Inter Fire Online, n.d). An example is when a fire breaks out, and the investigators have to enter the premises and put out the fire. Here, the investigators are allowed a limited time frame to extinguish the fire and determine its origin and cause. Investigators can also collect evidence if they are given consent by the individual in lawful control of said property. An example is when a fire occurs and the local fire department comes to extinguish the fire, where they find the proprietor within the vicinity who formally waivers their rights through writing which must be documented as evidence (Inter Fire Online, n.d).
The final manner requires the provision of a search warrant which can either be based on administrative or criminal causes. Administrative warrants are acquired from law courts when consent has either been denied or not granted (Inter Fire Online, n.d). An example would be when the investigators are denied consent, yet there is a reasonable and valid public interest to investigate. Criminal warrants are obtained when there is a need to assess and collect evidence of a crime (Inter Fire Online, n.d). An example would be when a fire breaks out, and investigators find evidence of arson and want to go back and collect more evidence after the reasonable timeframe is over. While criminal warrants are restricted to showing probable cause before they are handed out, administrative warrants only require a reasonable doubt to be handed out.
Looking at the case's facts, I believe that initial entry to the fire was legal and appropriate. The first entry was an evident instance of exigent circumstance as the fire department chief had to come and assess the fire (Inter Fire Online, n.d). Upon arrival, he found out the evidence and had to liaise with a police detective to conduct the investigation and ensure that they documented everything as per the training they receive on collecting evidence on a crime scene. However, I believe that the next entry was unlawful as the initial entry had yielded enough evidence to warrant consent or a lawful search warrant. The investigators found evidence that they could have confronted the proprietors with or requested a court warrant to search the premises (Inter Fire Online, n.d). However, they chose to neglect these facts and went to conduct their investigations as they claimed the smoke and steam from the fire had made it impossible to perform a thorough investigation.
If I could go back in time and work with the chief and the detective on this investigation, I would recommend changing their tactics. First, I would have recommended that they wait for the steam and smoke to reduce to levels that could afford them better visibility. This would have removed their need to go back the next morning to conduct a second investigation on the fire. I would have also told them to first approach the furniture store owners and seek consent for the next investigations. If the owners did not cooperate, I would have advised them to take the evidence they collected and seek a court warrant to search the premises. They would have had both probable cause and reasonable evidence to conduct their investigations. These recommendations would have helped in ensuring that the supreme court does not overrule the verdict on the case.
References
Inter Fire Online. (n.d) Legal considerations: introduction, authority to conduct the investigation, and right of entry. https://www.interfire.org/res_file/9215-1y2.asp
Michigan v. Tyler. (1978, January 10). FindLaw. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/436/499.html
United States Courts. (n.d). What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0#:~:text=The%20Constitution%2C%20through%20the%20Fourth,deemed%20unreasonable%20under%20the%20law
