This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Search and seizure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Search and seizure describes a concept relating to US law and is only an instance of Confiscation. Confiscation is a wider concept than Search and seizure. The redirect from Confiscation should be removed and an article created there (the original article restored, if there was one?) or at least a disambiguation page should be created (perhaps also with a link to the Wiktionary entry if that is appropriate). Any resulting Confiscation page can note Search and seizure with a hyperlink. Eilthireach 00:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Smilarly, why does [forfeiture] redirect here? This article doesn't appear to deal with it at all. JonoP 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This needs a complete rewrite. It looks like somebody started a page on Search and Seizure, which should have discussed the application of the 4th Amendment to criminal investigation, the exclusionary rule, search warrants, etc., and then somebody else went off about forfeiture, which would involve substantive criminal law, due process, public policy, etc. The two topics over lap just a little. In either case, they are taking away your stuff, but the legal concepts, personal rights, and public interests involved are different. "Confiscation" would describe the government's taking of title or ownership to property for punishment or crime abatement, but forfeiture is the term usually used in the U.S. (I have no idea what terms are used in other English-speaking countries.) Search and seizure is the government looking for and taking physical possession evidence of crime. I'm a criminal defense attorney and would love to work on this article if I ever have pause in this relentless stream of searches and seizures. -- Mrees1997 00:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I have moved all of the text from this article on forfeiture to asset forfeiture and improved the remaining stub to better describe search and seizure. -- Cab88 13:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Can someone with the requisite legal knowledge add information regarding what happens to evidence seized without a required warrant in various jurisdictions (US, UK)? Rusco
Totally agreed: search and seizure is one thing, forfeiture is another. This needs to be sorted out. Jorge331 15:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I got a question... today we had a lockdown in my school and isnt that against the charter? I mean don't you have to have a legit reason to search someone or some people? Or is there just an exeption for high schools because all teenagers and only teenagers do drugs? I mean wtf u can't have steriotypeism as a reason. No I'm serious someone explain to me the difference between frisking some random person on the street and searshing random people/classrooms/lockers in the school. If u have an answer my email is mike_cowin_55@hotmail.com
Since you talk about the Charter, I am assuming you are Canadian. You do have some protection from illegal search but not as much as you would in your home for instance because your school locker is not your property but rather the property of the school. The charter only applies to the government and only protects you from having the evidence used in court. So even if the search is unreasonable, the school could use the evidence to suspend you or whatever. Eiad77 ( talk) 22:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a related article search of persons that is really in a bad way. I propose that it basically be eliminated and redirect to this article. Please comment here. Non Curat Lex ( talk) 04:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Does going through a cellular phone without consent constitute as illegal search and seizure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.71.240 ( talk) 00:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please add information on the question whether evidence of crimes other than the one for which the search was conducted may be used in legal proceedings? For example, a house is legally searched for stolen goods, and drugs or illegal firearms are found instead (or in addition). Thanks. -- 137.138.4.17 ( talk) 07:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The unformatted chunk starting with "Consequences of Exclusion" needs help. I would be bold and fix up the content myself, but I don't trust my wiki skills enough to mess with mainspace. Certainly the first sentence needs some clarification, and the last either needs sourcing or to be omitted (since a clarification of the first sentence would allow a reader to infer the implications). Cheers. 98.164.58.249 ( talk) 20:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
How often does this type of seizure happen in the USA?
“I just happened to be wearing black on a sidewalk in downtown Portland at the time,” Pettibone said. “And that apparently is grounds for detaining me.” In a statement, the U.S. Marshals Service declined to comment on the practice of using unmarked vehicles, but said their officers had not arrested Pettibone. "All United States Marshals Service arrestees have public records of arrest documenting their charges. Our agency did not arrest or detain Mark James Pettibone."
https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-vehicles-portland-protesters/
Doublespeak, or plain lie, at first glance.