ISSUING SEARCH WARRANTS BASED ON THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM POLICE SOURCES (A comparative research of adversial and continental legal system)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5937/spz0-20471Keywords:
police source, cognition, search, search warrantAbstract
In the Republic of Serbia, there have been major changes in the implementation of criminal investigations. The main goal in the legal regulation of criminal procedure in any democratic and legal state is the establishment of an optimal relationship between the two opposing tendencies in criminal proceedings. One of them strives to its full effectiveness and efficiency, and the other seeks to prevent excessive and unnecessary restrictions of rights and freedoms of citizens. In this work, using the method of comparison and correlation, based on content of analysis of legal acts from the adversarial legal system we investigate the updating and implementation of the search of the apartment based on the information from police sources, in the light of the prosecutorial investigation and the possibility or impossibility of issuing a search warrant from the court. Research grounds for the search of the apartment on the basis of information from operational sources of the police, has not been carried on our theory so far. As a starting point we take the analysis of the formal legal and institutional framework within which the problem and the subject of research should be defined. The decision to write an article about the use of police information to obtain orders for undertaking the search of the apartment, has been imposed after the changes that have been made by the criminal procedural code in Serbia. The work on one hand explores the application of knowledge ranges from police sources in establishing substantive and legal basis for receiving the command to enter the apartment and searching, in a new constructed adversarial evidence procedure in Serbia. On the other hand, it points to the necessity of adoption of the Directive by which the prosecutor would prescribe what an operating source, criminal investigation and criminalistics operations are.
Downloads
References
Amar, A.R., The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles, Yale University Press, New Haven 1997.
Amar, A.R., “Fourth Amendment first principles”,Harvard Law Review, Vol.107, 1994, 757-819.
Barnett, R. E., “Resolving the Dilemma of the Exclusionary Rule: An Application of Restitutive Principles of Justice”, Emory Law Journal, Vol. 32, 1983, 937–985.
Bransdorfer, M.S., “Miranda Right-to-Counsel Violations and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine”,Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 62, 1986, 1061-1100.
Davies, T. Y., “Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 98, 3/1999, 547-750.
Dressler, J., Understanding Criminal Procedure, LexisNexis, Newark 20023.
Dripps, D., “The case for the contingent exclusionary rule”, American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 38, 1/2001, 5-23.
Gaines, L.K., LeRoy Miller, R., Criminal justice in action, The Core. Belmont, CA, Thomson / Wadsworth, 2006.
Gittins, J. R., “Excluding the Exclusionary Rule: Extending the Rationale of Hudson v. Michigan to Evidence Seized During Unauthorized Nighttime Searches”, BYU Law Review, 2/2007.
Harkins, C. A., “The Pinocchio Defense Witness Impeachment Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Combating a Defendant’s Right to Use with Impunity the Perjurious Testimony of Defense Witnesses”, University of Illinois Law Review, 1990, 375–473.
Heffernan, W. C., “On Justifying Fourth Amendment Exclusion”, Wisconsin Law Review, 1989, 1193–1254.
Jackson, H. A., “Arizona v. Evans: expanding exclusionary rule exceptions and contracting Fourth Amendment protection”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, 4/1996, 1201-1227.
Jones, D. S., „Application of the exclusionary rule to bar use of illegally seized evidence in civil school disciplinary proceedings“,Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, Vol. 52, 1997, 375-397.
Kamisar, Y., “Wolf and Lustig Ten Years Later: Illegal State Evidence in State and Federal Courts”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 43, 1958.
Kamisar, Y., „In defense of the search and seizure exclusionary rule“, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 26, 2003.
Killian, B.J, “United States v. Crews: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree-A New Wrinkle”, Idaho Law Review, Vol.18, 1982, 151.
Klarman, M. J., “The racial origins of modern criminal procedure”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 99, 1/2000, 48-97.
Lash, K.T., “James Madison’s Celebrated Report of 1800: The Transformation of the Tenth Amendment”, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 74, 2/2006, 165-200.
Liptak, A. Supreme Court Edging Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling, N. Y. TIMES, Jan. 31, 2009, at A1.
O’Laughlin, M. J., “Exigent Circumstances: Circumscribing the Exclusionary Rule in Response to 9/11”, University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, Vol. 70, 2001.
Pitler, S. E., “The Origin and Development of Washington’s Independent Exclusionary Rule: Constitutionally Compelled Remedy”, Washington Law Review, Vol. 61, 1986.
Rader, R. R., “Legislating a Remedy for the Fourth Amendment”, South Texas Law Journal, Vol. 23, 1982.
Roots, R. “The Originalist Case for the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule“, Gonzaga Law Review, Vol. 45, 2010, 1-66.
Schauer, F., “On the supposed jury-dependence of evidence law”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 1/2006, 165-202.
Schrock, T.S., Welsh, R.C., “Up from Calandra: The Exclusionary Rule as a Constitutional Requirement”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 59, 1974.
Steinberg, D. E, “The Original Understanding of Unreasonable Searches and Seizures”, Florida Law Review, Vol. 56, 2004, 1052-1096.
Stewart, P., “The road to Mapp v. Ohio and beyond: the origins, development and future of the exclusionary rule in search-and-seizure cases”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 83, 1983.
Stribopoulos, J., „Lessons from the pupil: A Canadian solution to the American exclusionary rule debate“,Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 22, 1999.
Stuntz, W. J., “Warrants and Fourth Amendment Remedies”, Virginia Law Review, 1991, 881-943.
Tinsley, P., Kinsella, S., Block, W., “In Defense of Evidence and Against the Exclusionary Rule: A Libertarian Approach”, Southern University Law Review, Vol. 32, 2004, 63-80.
Webster, A. T, “Protecting Society’s Rights While Preserving Fourth Amendment Protections: An Alternative to the Exclusionary Rule”, South Texas Law Journal, Vol. 23, 1982.
Wilson, B.P, “The Fourth Amendment as More Than a Form of Words: The View from the Founding”, in: The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding (ed. Eugene W. Hickock, Jr), University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1991.
Wright, D.R., “How to Improve Military Search and Seizure Law”, Military Law Review, Vol. 116, 1987.
Legal sources
Zakonik o krivičnom postupku, Službeni glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the RS], br. 72/2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013 45/2013, 55/2014.
Ustav Republike Srbije, Sl. glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the RS], br. 98/2006.
Caselaw
Boggs v. Vandyke, 3 Del. (3 Harr.) 288, 288 (1840).
Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports 1996-V.
Colvert v. Moore, 17 S.C.L. (1 Bail.) 549, 549 (S.C. 1830).
Findlay v. Pruitt, 9 Port. 195, 200 (Ala. 1839).
Garvin v. Blocker, 4 S.C.L. (2 Brev.) 157, 158 (S.C. 1807).
Hall v. Hall, 6 G. & J. 386, 409 (Md. 1834).
Hernandez v. State, 60 S.W.3d 106, 112-14, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
State of Tennessee v. Michael T. Shelby, John H. Gasaway, Judge, No. M2011-01289-CCA-R3 Cd- Filed June 19, 2013.
Lawson v. Buzines, 3 Del. (3 Harr.) 416, 416 (1842).
Perry v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63737/00, 26 September 2002.
Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 116, ECHR 2006-IX.
Randall v. Henry, 5 Stew. & P. 367 (Ala. 1834).
Reed v. Legg, 2 Del. (2 Harr.) 173, 176 (1837).
Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 127, ECHR 2008.
Silverthorne Lumber Co.v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 1920.
Simpson v. Smith, 2 Del. Cas. 285 (1817).
State v. McDonald, 14 N.C. (3 Dev.) 468, 471-72 (1832).
V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.24888/94, § 69, ECHR 1999-IX.
Virginia v. Moore, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 1603-04, 2008.
