Question

Discuss what evidence, upon finding the suspects, would be permissible

to take without a warrant given the facts of the case that were known up until that time. Discuss the process you would go through to collect the evidence legally and to submit to the courts.
 
https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Publications/SniperRpt.pdf

Answer & Explanation
Verified Solved by verified expert

Someone of sufficient mental capacity voluntarily acquiescing or complying with a request; a decision made without compulsion or pressure. The totality of the circumstances determines whether or not a party has granted voluntary consent. Making physical contact with a suspect's outer clothing to determine whether or not a concealed weapon is there. A frisk (or "pat-down") is not permitted to look for mere contraband, evidence of a crime, fruits of a crime, or instrumentalities of a crime, but only for the existence of a weapon that could endanger the officer or others in the area. A frisk isn't the same as a thorough search. If the frisk discloses the presence of a weapon, a more complete search may be permitted, and whatever is discovered can be submitted as evidence at trial.

 

A search that occurs as a result of a legitimate arrest does not necessitate the issuance of a warrant. To put it another way, if someone is legitimately arrested, the authorities have the right to search her person as well as any area surrounding her that is within reach (her "wingspan"). The premise is that the search is legal as a precaution for police safety and to protect evidence that could otherwise be lost.

 

If the police are legitimately in the area where the evidence may be viewed, no warrant is required to seize evidence in plain sight. An police, for example, cannot enter a suspect's back yard illegally and then utilize the plain view exemption to capture an illegally harbored alligator in the pool. However, if on the premises to serve a valid search warrant for marijuana plants, the alligator, if in plain view, can be legally confiscated (though not readily).

 

Police may detain a suspect if they have a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime and can articulate the factors that led to that suspicion. The level of evidence required for "reasonable suspicion" in this case is higher than that required for probable cause, but it is lower than that required for probable cause. The police can also frisk the suspect if they have grounds to believe he or she is armed and dangerous.

 

Because automobiles are so mobile, authorities do not need a warrant to search them if they have probable cause to think the vehicle includes evidence of a crime, criminal instruments, contraband, or the fruits of a crime. This law applies to any vehicle, including boats, and is usually referred to as the "automobile exception." While it is a broad exemption in certain ways, this rule restricts the ability to search locations that could hold evidence of the sort anticipated to be there. To put it another way, if police suspect a boat's occupant is smuggling people across the border, inspecting a small tackle box on board would be illegal. They could, however, inspect the tackle box for drugs if they were seeking for them. The reasoning is that if an officer has to wait for a warrant, the car may be out of reach before the warrant is obtained and executed.

 

In countries where the rule of law is well-established, it is critical for the investigating agency to collect enough legally admissible evidence to persuade the judge or jury that the suspect is guilty. Even when police agencies are quite certain that a specific person is responsible for a crime, they may be unable to prove guilt through legally admissible evidence. The police use a range of powers and methods to obtain the relevant evidence. Because those authorities and processes, if used inappropriately, could allow the police to infringe on the suspect's constitutionally protected liberties, they are usually scrutinized by legislation or the courts.

 

The search of a suspect's person or property is a crucial step. Most common-law jurisdictions permit searches only if there is "reasonable cause to believe" or "reasonable ground to suspect" that evidence would be discovered. A person may be stopped and searched on the street in particular circumstances, provided that the officers identify themselves and declare the purpose for the search. A person stopped on the street in the United States may be patted down for a weapon without the police having any evidence.

 

A search warrant granted by a magistrate or judge is normally required for a search of private property. A search warrant can normally only be issued if the authorities are convinced (after hearing evidence under oath) that there is reasonable cause to believe the sought-after evidence, which the warrant usually outlines expressly, would be found on the premises. The warrant may have a time limit and usually only allows for one search. In most nations, the search must be reported to the court or magistrate who issued the warrant. The police normally save materials obtained as a result of a search conducted under the authority of a search warrant so that they can be used as exhibits in any subsequent trial.

 

Each item of relevant evidence will be evaluated based on its "probative value," which is the weight or persuasive value assigned by the court to that piece of evidence when determining its worth in proving a point of fact in the case at hand. This probative value of evidence aids the judge, or the judge and jury, in reaching a determination of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court, or proof within a reasonable doubt in civil court.

Step-by-step explanation

References.

https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/search-warrant-issuance-execution-singapore/

https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/177rptp2.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/topic/crime-law/Gathering-evidence