The law prohibits enforcement officers from seizing evidence illegally. If one does so, the evidence is excluded from the case. The people vs. Zelinski case involved a private security guard who noticed a defendant placing a blouse inside her purse and arrested her. When the police searched for weapons, they discovered narcotics. In court, the evidence was declared illegal. This case raises concerns about whether the search and seizure rule should be applied to private security.
A recent case of search and seizure is the Joliet vs. Manuel case in 2017. Police officers searched Manuel during a routine traffic stop and found him with a bottle of pills, which they suspected were illegal substances. When tested, the technician revealed that all the drugs tested negative except one, which was positive for ecstasy. Manuel was taken to court, and the judge detained Manuel based on possessing controlled substances. When the pills were tested in a police laboratory in Illinois, the results revealed no controlled substances. Despite these results, the defendant was detained for 48 days before his release. In less than two years after he was released, the defendant filed a court case against Joilet and several enforcement officers. Although the court dismissed his claims, Manuel appealed the dismissal of his claim in court (Charleson, 2018).
In the USA vs. Lacey Lee Koenig and Lee Graf (Fed Ex) case, the Federal Express (Fed Ex) received a suspicious package containing a white powder for delivery. A field test revealed the powder was cocaine. At its terminus, the package was handled by a police officer who was also an employee of Fed Ex. The parcel was delivered to Ms. Koineg as indicated, and officers followed to the residence for a search that resulted in the package’s seizure. While still searching, Graf knocked and entered the house, and the police found him with $ 1,800. Both Ms. Koineg and Graf were charged for conspiring to distribute cocaine. To suppress the evidence, the two argue that the evidence resulted from an illegal search. Their efforts to suppress the evidence on the basis of illegality and intrusion of privacy failed, and they ended up being convicted. The Graf case was considered a conspiracy because such agreements are done secretly, and the government may not actually have proof. Further investigation revealed that Graf purchased cocaine frequently and in large quantities. Unlike in the Manuel and Joliet’s case, this one had enough proof of the crime. The second case also lacked any privacy interest or government interference of Fed Ex. Also, the evidence in the second case was based on a proper field test and legal investigation, while in the first case, Manuel was charged and detained on the basis of claims by the technician that the pill contained a controlled substance. The search in the second cause was also based on a probable cause (Henkin, 2019).
Charleson, L. H. (2018). Manuel v. City of Joliet: Pursuing a Claim Under the Fourth Amendment. Texas A&M Law Review, 5(1), 47-53.
Henkin, L. (2017). Search And Seizure.