WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Sec. 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.”
This constitutional guarantee is a liberty safeguard that prohibits and directs.
While laying down the general rule against unreasonable searches and
seizures, it also provides the guidelines for acceptable conduct on the
part of government authorities in regard to any intrusion into or invasion of
the people’s right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects”
It has also been held that the warrant is not meant to authorize fishing
expeditions.
The finding of evidence cannot be the immediate reason for issuing a search
warrant. To use a search warrant for this purpose would be ‘unreasonable’
use of the remedy by search warrant, which is prohibited by law.
It assures one’s entitlement to privacy and right to be left alone and do
whatever he wishes within bounds without having to be subjected to the
prying eyes of Big Brother.
The embodiment of a “spiritual concept: the belief that to value the privacy
of home and person and to afford its constitutional protection against the
long reach of government in no less than to value human dignity, and that
his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social need,
and then only under stringent procedural safeguards”.
The privacy of the home has always been regarded by civilized nations as
one of the most sacred personal rights to which men are entitled “A man’s
home is his castle,” has become a maxim among the civilized people of the
earth.
The right extends to all persons, including aliens. So are corporations also
included within its protection, though to a lesser extent.
Requirements for Issuance of Warrants
1. There should be a search warrant or warrant of arrest
 2. Probable cause supported the issuance of such warrant
3. Such probable cause had been determined personally by a judge
4. The judge personally examined the complaint and his witnesses
5. The place to be searched and the persons or to be seized have been
particularly described
The Constitution requires that [the judge] carefully determine the basis for
the issuance of such warrant in order that the protection declared be not set
at naught. The test of sufficiency of an affidavit or testimony to justify the
issuance of a warrant is whether the affiant or the witness could be held for
perjury and made liable for damages in case his statements are false.
Nature of Search Warrants Proceedings
A search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, a criminal action or the
commencement of a prosecution. The proceeding is not one against any
person, but is solely for the discovery and to get possession of personal
property. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made
necessary because of public necessity.
Determination of Probable Cause
Probable cause means such facts and circumstances antecedent to the
issuance of a warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce cautious
man to rely upon then.
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest would mean such facts
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested.
Probable cause for a search would mean such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed and that the objects sought in connection to the offense
are in the place sought to be searched.
This responsibility of determining such cause has been vested solely in
judges, a duty which cannot be delegated to anybody else. If the
determination is done by one directly interested in law enforcement the
process would very likely be tainted and clouded by his need to produce
result in line with his job, and, in the process, obscure some other
considerations which would otherwise be seen and appreciated by one not
similarly circumstanced.
Probable Cause for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest and Role of
Judges
What is required is that the judge must have sufficient supporting
documents upon which to make his independent judgment, or at the very
least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence
of probable cause.
If the judge disagrees, or finds the evidence insufficient, contrary to the
conclusions of the prosecutor, the judge should not dismiss the case but
instead require the fiscal to present additional evidence to show probable
cause.
The Court explained that the issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial
function. It calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the
issuing magistrate. “While before, it was mandatory for the investigating
Judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if he found probable
cause, the rule now is that the investigating Judge’s power to order the
arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for
placing him in custody ‘in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.’ The
arrest of the accused can be ordered only in the event that the prosecutor
files the case and the Judge of the Regional Trial Court finds probable cause
for the issuance of the warrant of arrest”.
Particularity of Description and General Warrants
Notwithstanding the authority granted by a warrant, resulting search or
seizure may still be violative of the guarantee if such instrument is in the
nature of a general warrant, or one which practically authorizes a blanket
search or seizure, a roving authority of officers serving it to look everywhere
and get anything that may be associated with what is being sought,
“authorizing searches in any place for anything.
The general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be
commenced to search suspected places without evidence of a fact
committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense
is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and
oppressive, and ought not to be granted.
To obviate and prevent an avenue for abuse and arbitrary exercise of power,
the Constitution specifically requires particularity of description of things or
people to be searched and seized.
The warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized
when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow, or when the description expresses conclusion of fact--not of
law--by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and
seizure, or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant if being issued.
A search warrant may be partially void, such as when it provided for the
search and seizure of items which have not been testified to during the
application for such warrant.
The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of the things to be
seized is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to:
(1) readily identify the properties to e seized and this prevent them from
seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion
regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches
and seizures.
The rule is that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify
the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community.
“John Doe” Warrants
The warrant should, as a rule, identify the person whose place is to be
searched, or the individual to be arrested. It may happen, however, that the
name could not be readily ascertained, in which event some description
sufficient to identify the person may be resorted. If the description contains
enough details so that the officer serving the warrant would have no
difficulty identifying the person, then the warrant would be considered valid.
Service Warrants - Time, Place and Manner
The time must not be one which is intrusive or violative of one’s privacy, like
at the middle of the night. As for place, the warrant limits the area that may
be searched and the warrant could not be utilized as authority to search
everywhere until the item or articles sought for are found. The manner of
service should not also be oppressive or otherwise abusive It could be
served out at any time within its ten-day lifetime, and if its object or purpose
cannot be accomplished in one day, the same may be continued the
following day or days until completed.
Being armed with a warrant does not give leeway to a law enforcement
officer in doing whatever he wants without regard to the time, place, and
manner of execution of the warrant.
 1. The time must not also be one which is intrusive or violative of one’s
privacy (e.g. in the middle of the night). It’s also a given that what is
considered as reasonable time in one locality may not be deemed the
same way in another.
2. As for place, the warrant limits the area that may be searched and the
warrant could not be utilized as authority to search everywhere until
the items or articles sought for are found.
3. Lastly, the manner of execution should not be oppressive or otherwise
abusive.
Warrantless Searches and Seizures
The recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement include:
1. Search incident to a lawful arrest
2. Evidence in plain view
3. Search of moving vehicles
4. Customs search
5. Stop and frisk
6. Exigent and emergency circumstances
7. Consented search
Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
This is primarily justified by the need to ensure the safety of the arresting
officers against any possible harm arising from the use by the arrested
individual of any weapon that he might have concealed in his person or
which is within immediate reach as well as the need to preserve evidence
that might otherwise be destroyed.
Plain View Doctrine
Under this exception, contraband in plain view of officers who have a right to
be in that place where they are and see the contraband have the right to
seize it without having to secure a warrant.
Objects falling in the plain view of an officer, who has the right to be in the
position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence.
Requisites:
1. Prior justification for the entry or intrusion
2. Inadvertent discovery of the evidence
3. The illegality of the evidence must be immediately apparent.
4. Plain view justifies mere seizure of evidence without further search
Search of Moving Vehicles
If a warrant were first required before a car may be searched, it may only be
an exercise in futility as by the time the warrant is issued the vehicle to be
searched may have been driven to some far away and unknown places.
One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its
function is transportation, and it seldom serves as one’s residence or as the
repository of personal effects. A car has little capacity for escaping public
scrutiny. It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its
contents are in plain view.
Related to this kind of searches is the issue of checkpoints where the rule is
that only visual searches or inspection may be had unless there is justifiable
reason for conducting a more extended search.
The Court differentiated the checkpoint--which was primarily intended to
determine if the vehicle’s occupants were committing a crime--from an
“information-seeking” checkpoint where police stop vehicles and ask the
occupants for help in providing information about a crime that has been
committed by others. This latter form was considered valid.
Customs Searches
Items which are imported and which are to be subjected to payment of
customs duties are not considered as properly within the territory of the
taxing authority if the appropriate taxes have not yet been paid.
“Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and air crafts for
violations of the customs laws have been the traditional exception to the
constitutional requirement of a search warrant, because the vessel can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant
must be sought before such warrant could be secured; hence it is not
practicable to require a search warrant before search or seizure can be
constitutionally effected.
Stop and Frisk Exception - The Terry Patdown
In certain situations, a police officer on the beat may observe certain
unusual and suspicious activity which his training and experience would
indicate that something wrong is afoot. He need not wait for an explicit
criminal conduct be manifested before he may take action. In such an
instance, he may approach the suspicious person and undertake a limited
check-- a stop and frisk--patting down the outside clothing of the person for
possibly concealed weapons. This is justified by the need to act expeditiously
in a case where a minute’s delay may prove dangerous if not disastrous.
A Terry stop must be justified at its inception and ‘reasonably related in
scope to the circumstances which justified’ the initial stop. The
reasonableness of seizures that are less intrusive than a traditional arrest
depends ‘on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right
to personal security from arbitrary interference by law officers.
Consented Searches
Where the person to be searched acquiesces in the search of his person or
property, then obviously no warrant need be procured. He in effect waives
his right to otherwise have a warrant justify the invasion of his liberty and
privacy. It should not be presumed from a person’s silence that he waived
the illegality of a search. Such a passive conformity given under coercive or
intimidating circumstances is considered no consent at all within the purview
of the constitutional guarantee.
Consent must be made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently
Requisites:
1. It must appear first that the right exists
2. The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive of the
existence of such right
3. Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right
Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred but must be shown by clear
and convincing evidence
Relevant to this determination are the following characteristics of the person
giving consent and the environment in which consent is given:
1. The age of the defendant
2. Whether he was in public or secluded location
3. Whether he objected to the search of passively looked on
4. The education and intelligence of the defendant
5. The presence of coercive police procedures
6. The defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence will be found
7. The nature of the police questioning
8. The environment in which the questioning took place
9. The possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting
It is the State which has the burden of proving, by clear and positive
testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely
and voluntarily given.
Airport Searches
Correlated to the lessened expectation of privacy which a passenger must
necessarily have to recognize and accept, part of the price for traveling in a
mode of transportation that has special concerns for safety and security.
The Terry search or the “stop and frisk” situation refers to a case where a
police officer approaches a person who is acting suspiciously, for the purpose
of investigating possibly criminal behavior in line with the general interest of
effective crime prevention and detection. To assure himself that the person
with whim he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly
and fatally be used against him, he could validly conduct a carefully limited
search of the outer clothing of such person to discover weapons which might
be used to assault him.
Administrative and Other Searches
Searches and seizures by government employers or supervisors of the
private property of their employees are subject to the restraints of the
Fourth Amendment. Public employees’ expectations of privacy in their
offices, desks, and file cabinets, like similar expectations of employees in
private sector, may be reduced by virtue of actual office practices and
procedures, or by legitimate regulation.
In our view, requiring an employer to obtain warrant whenever the employer
wishes to enter an employee’s office, desk, or file cabinets for a work-related
purpose would seriously disrupt the routine conduct of business and would
be unduly burdensome.
Alcohol, Drugs and Related Tests
Requiring a person to submit urine or blood, or to undergo breathalyzer
testing for the purpose of determining whether he is under the influence of
alcohol or drugs are considered a species of search that is governed by the
constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. This
means, generally, that such a search may only be had pursuant to a
probable cause, or an individualized suspicion.
Canine “Sniff Test”
While this may also implicate the privacy interest of the owner, this is
deemed as not approaching constitutional dimensions so as to rule out the
practice. “A sniff by a dog that simply walks around a car is much less
intrusive than a typical search”.
The “Special Needs” Exception
Under this exception, the Court upheld an extended warrantless search of a
student’s purse after a report of smoking in the school lavatory and following
the student’s denial of said report.
Our precedents establish that the proffered special need for drug testing
must be substantial--important enough to override the individual’s
acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth
Amendment’s normal requirement of individualized suspicion.
Warrantless Arrest
These arrests without warrant are justified by the fact that the person to be
arrested is caught in the act (in flagrante delicto), is apprehended pursuant
to a hot pursuit, or is an escaped prisoner.
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant;
when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

In Flagrante Delicto
Under this exception, the arrest is justified by the very fact that the crime is
committed or is about to be committed in the very presence of the person
making the arrest. There is no more need for a warrant as the culprit is
caught redhanded.
“Reliable information” alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest
under Section 5(a), Rule 113. The rule requires, in addition, that the
accused perform such overt act that would indicate that he has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
Elements:
1. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating he has
just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime.
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.
State of Rebellion
In quelling or suppressing the rebellion, the authorities may only resort to
warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion, as provided under
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, if the circumstances so warrant.
Hot Pursuit
When a crime has just been committed, the law enforcers ordinarily would
have to try to get the culprit as soon as possible before he eludes them.
They may be in possession of enough information or knowledge by which to
identify their quarry and make the arrest before their job would become
more difficult through the passage of time.
Administrative Warrants
The Constitution is explicit that it is only a judge who can issue warrants.
The 1973 Charter allowed such other “responsible officer as may be
authorized by law” to determine probable cause.
Exclusionary Rule - The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
The Constitution explicitly follows the exclusionary rule; any evidence
obtained in a search or seizure without warrant or authority of an invalid
warrant shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
In the past it was held that sanctions against erring law enforcers would be
enough vindication of a violated right while allowing the results of such an
unreasonable search and seizure to be admissible in evidence.
A fruit of an illegal or unconstitutional act could not and should not be given
any form of legitimacy by its admission in evidence. Along with the
discarding of the old rule came the demise of the so-called Silver Platter
Doctrine which allowed federal judicial use of evidence seized in violation of
the Constitution by state agents.
It is said that the exclusionary rule has three purposes:
First, the rule is calculated to prevent, not repair. Its purpose is to deter--to
compel respect for constitutional guaranty in the only effective available
way--by removing the incentive to disregard it.
Second, the “imperative of judicial integrity,” i.e., that the courts do not
become “accomplices in the willful disobedience of a Constitution they are
sworn to uphold…by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of
such invasions…A ruling admitting evidence in a criminal trial…has the
necessary effect of legitimizing the conduct which produced the evidence,
while an application of the exclusionary rule withholds the constitutional
imprimatur”.
Third, that “of assuring the people--all potential victim of unlawful
government conduct--that the government would not profit from its lawless
behavior, thus minimizing the risk of seriously undermining popular trust in
government”.
No man is to be convicted on unconstitutional evidence.
Additional Sanctions for Violations of the Guarantee
In addition to the exclusionary rule as a means of deterrence, the erring
officers may also be subjected to criminal and civil liabilities for violating the
constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Extra-territorial Reach of the Guarantee
The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not have extraterritorial
effect sp as to cover searches made in another country involving non-
American citizen. The social impact is only between the government and
those governed, including aliens who have gone into the territory of the
United States and developed substantial connections with that country.
Thus, if the person affected is a citizen, it might be an entirely different
matter.
Scientific and Technological Advancements and the Search and
Seizure Clause
As technology advances, the level of reasonably expected privacy decreases.
The measure of protection granted by the reasonable expectation diminishes
as relevant technology becomes more widely accepted.
In this area, again the courts would have to see how the constitutional
guarantee of privacy could be adjusted to meet modern needs and demands,
for as always there would be the never-ending push and pull between the
need of government to maintain its role as protector against equally
modernizing criminal elements and the constant demand to safeguard
enduring liberty interests.
The Big Brother Spectre and the Right to Privacy
The limits of tolerable governmental intrusions and the extent of privacy that
society may reasonably recognize in various situations would necessarily
have to be considered by the courts every now and then, as what might not
be allowable now would become a matter of necessity at some other time,
under different circumstances.