warrant requirement in Mississippi

2024The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “there has long been an automobile exception to the warrant requirement where probable cause exists.” Smith v. State, 724 So. 2d 280, 312 (¶123) (Miss. 1998) (citing McNeal v. State, 617 So. 2d 999 (Miss. 1993); Barry v. State, 406 So. 2d 45, 47 (Miss. 1981); Hall v. State, 288 So. 2d 850, 851 (Miss. 1974)).

1996This rule is well summarized in Barry v. State, 406 So.2d 45 , (Miss. 1981): "A warrantless search of an automobile has long been recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement provided probable cause and exigent circumstances exist.

2023“Mississippi has long recognized that a defendant can waive his or her rights under the warrant requirement by consenting to a search.” Id. at 863 (¶23).

2021“Mississippi has long recognized that a defendant can waive his or her rights under the warrant requirement by consenting to a search.” Graves, 11 708 So. 2d at 863 . “[A] search conducted pursuant to a valid consent is constitutionally permissible.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 , 93 S. Ct. 2041 , 36 L.

2026“Voluntary consent eliminates the warrant requirement.” Moore v. State, 933 So. 2d 910, 916 (Miss. 2006) (citing Morris v. State, 777 So. 2d 16, 26 (Miss. 2000)).

2010But “[voluntary consent eliminates the warrant requirement.” Id. (citing Mortis v. State, 777 So.2d 16, 26 (Miss.2000)). “[W]here consent is given, the State is not required to demonstrate knowledge; rather, ‘the burden [is] on the defendant to show impaired consent or some diminished capacity.’ ” Id. (quoting Jones v. State, 607 So.2d 23, 29 (Miss.1991)).

2024The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “there has long been an automobile exception to the warrant requirement where probable cause exists.” Smith v. State, 724 So. 2d 280, 312 (¶123) (Miss. 1998) (citing McNeal v. State, 617 So. 2d 999 (Miss. 1993); Barry v. State, 406 So. 2d 45, 47 (Miss. 1981); Hall v. State, 288 So. 2d 850, 851 (Miss. 1974)).

1993Id.; accord Barry v. State, 406 So.2d 45, 47 (Miss. 1981) ("A warrantless search of an automobile has long been recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement provided probable cause ... existed. "); Hall v. State, 288 So.2d 850, 851 (Miss. 1974) ("An automobile may be searched ... without a warrant ... because there is probable cause that the vehicle may be evidence of a crime or contains something that offends against the law."); see also Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67, 67-68 , 96 S.Ct. 304, 305 , 46 L.Ed.2d 209, 211-12 (1975) (evidence seized after warrantless search of automobile at po

2026“Voluntary consent eliminates the warrant requirement.” Moore v. State, 933 So. 2d 910, 916 (Miss. 2006) (citing Morris v. State, 777 So. 2d 16, 26 (Miss. 2000)).

2017Moore , 933 So.2d at 916 (¶ 18).

2025This argument is unconvincing given that “[i]n the case of a search incident to arrest, the exception to the warrant requirement is founded upon the reasonable concern that the arrestee might have a weapon on his person or within reach, and that he may attempt to destroy evidence which is within his grasp.” Ferrell v. State, 649 So. 2d 831, 832-34 (Miss. 1995) (reversing and rendering a conviction of possession of illegal substance where search of arrestee’s car occurred when arrestee was secured and handcuffed in police vehicle).

2016In a similar case, Ferrell, 649 So. 2d at 834 , the supreme court found no exception to the warrant requirement for the search of a matchbox.

2006With respect to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, this Court has established the following rule: "[i]n order for there to be a valid consent to a search not otherwise authorized by law, . . . the person searched [must] be aware he has the legal right to refuse." Penick v. State, 440 So.2d 547, 550 (Miss.1983) ( citing Smith v. State, 133 Miss. 730 , 98 So. 344, 345 (1923)). [2] Consent is valid only where a person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right not to be searched.

2005With respect to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, this Court has established the following rule: “[i]n order for there to be a valid consent to a search not otherwise authorized by law, . . . the person searched [must] be aware he has the legal right to refuse.” Pennick v. State, 440 So.2d 547, 550 (Miss. 1983) (citing Smith v. State, 98 So. 344, 345 (Miss. 1923)).2 Consent is valid only where a person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right not to be searched.

2024The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “there has long been an automobile exception to the warrant requirement where probable cause exists.” Smith v. State, 724 So. 2d 280, 312 (¶123) (Miss. 1998) (citing McNeal v. State, 617 So. 2d 999 (Miss. 1993); Barry v. State, 406 So. 2d 45, 47 (Miss. 1981); Hall v. State, 288 So. 2d 850, 851 (Miss. 1974)).

2024The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “there has long been an automobile exception to the warrant requirement where probable cause exists.” Smith v. State, 724 So. 2d 280, 312 (¶123) (Miss. 1998) (citing McNeal v. State, 617 So. 2d 999 (Miss. 1993); Barry v. State, 406 So. 2d 45, 47 (Miss. 1981); Hall v. State, 288 So. 2d 850, 851 (Miss. 1974)).

2025Absent an exception to the warrant requirement, “the state and federal constitutions prohibit warrantless searches[.]” Eaddy, 63 So. 3d at 1213 (citing Gonzales v. State, 963 So. 2d 1138, 1142 (Miss. 2007)).“Unless the State proves that a warrantless search comes within an exception, all evidence seized from the search is inadmissible.” Id. (citing Jackson v. State, 418 So. 2d 827, 829 (Miss. 1982)).

1985We, therefore, conclude that the consent exception to the warrant requirement permits the admission of the evidence in question. 418 So.2d at 830 .

2003See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (the court recognizes that there are exceptions to the warrant requirement for a search); Graves v. State, 708 So.2d 858, 862-63 (Miss.1997)(the court set forth numerous exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a valid search warrant).

2003See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (the court recognizes that there are exceptions to the warrant requirement for a search); Graves v. State, 708 So.2d 858, 862-63 (Miss.1997)(the court set forth numerous exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a valid search warrant).

2025Ct. App. 2005); see also Roche v. State, 913 So. 2d 306, 313 (¶22) (Miss. 2005) (“There is an exception to the warrant requirement in the context of vehicle searches.

2024WESTBROOKS, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. 6 See Roche v. State, 913 So. 2d 306, 313 (¶22) (Miss. 2005) (“There is an exception to the warrant requirement in the context of vehicle searches.

2020A search incident to arrest is an “exception to the warrant requirement if founded upon the reasonable concern that the arrestee might have a weapon on his person or within reach, and that he may attempt to destroy evidence which is within his grasp.” White v. State, 735 So. 2d 221, 224 (¶8) (Miss. 1999).

2000As this Court stated in White, "[i]n the case of a search incident to arrest, the exception to the warrant requirement is founded upon the reasonable concern that the arrestee might have a weapon on his person or within reach, and that he may attempt to destroy evidence which is within his grasp." White v. State, 735 So.2d 221, 224 (Miss.1999)(citing Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 295 , 93 S.Ct. 2000, 2003 , 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973)).

2010But "[v]oluntary consent eliminates the warrant requirement." Id. (citing Morris v. State, 777 So.2d 16, 26 (Miss.2000)). "[W]here consent is given, the State is not required to demonstrate knowledge; rather, `the burden [is] on the defendant to show impaired consent or some diminished capacity.'" Id. (quoting Jones v. State, 607 So.2d 23, 29 (Miss.1991)).

2010But “[voluntary consent eliminates the warrant requirement.” Id. (citing Mortis v. State, 777 So.2d 16, 26 (Miss.2000)). “[W]here consent is given, the State is not required to demonstrate knowledge; rather, ‘the burden [is] on the defendant to show impaired consent or some diminished capacity.’ ” Id. (quoting Jones v. State, 607 So.2d 23, 29 (Miss.1991)).

2006With respect to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, this Court has established the following rule: "[i]n order for there to be a valid consent to a search not otherwise authorized by law, . . . the person searched [must] be aware he has the legal right to refuse." Penick v. State, 440 So.2d 547, 550 (Miss.1983) ( citing Smith v. State, 133 Miss. 730 , 98 So. 344, 345 (1923)). [2] Consent is valid only where a person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right not to be searched.

2006With respect to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, this Court has established the following rule: "[i]n order for there to be a valid consent to a search not otherwise authorized by law, . . . the person searched [must] be aware he has the legal right to refuse." Penick v. State, 440 So.2d 547, 550 (Miss.1983) ( citing Smith v. State, 133 Miss. 730 , 98 So. 344, 345 (1923)). [2] Consent is valid only where a person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right not to be searched.

2000"The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment: requiring a teacher obtain a warrant before searching a child suspected of an infraction of school rules (or of the criminal law) would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in schools." Id. at 340 , 105 S.Ct. 733 . ¶ 17.

2000"The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment: requiring a teacher obtain a warrant before searching a child suspected of an infraction of school rules (or of the criminal law) would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in schools." Id. at 340 , 105 S.Ct. 733 . ¶ 17.

2025In addition, “[u]nder the automobile exception [to the warrant requirement] police may conduct a warrantless search of an automobile and any containers therein if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a crime.” Spencer v. State, 908 So. 2d 783, 787 (¶11) (Miss.

2024When probable cause justifies the search of vehicle which police have lawfully stopped, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)); Spencer v. State, 908 So. 2d 783, 787 (¶11) (Miss.

2025Galloway, 122 So. 3d at 669 (¶182); Graves v. State, 708 So. 2d 858, 863 (¶22) (Miss. 1997).

2016Galloway, 122 So. 3d at 669 (¶182).

2024He further claims the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because his truck was “not readily mobile,” and there were no “exigent circumstances.” After a hearing, the trial court denied Turnage’s motion to suppress and found that “although law enforcement did not have a search warrant, the search fell within the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement to have a warrant.” The court cited Hoskins v. State, 172 So. 3d 1242, 1248 (¶12) (Miss.

2022The “plain view” doctrine is an exception to the warrant requirement and provides that an officer may “seize an object in plain view if the officer can see it from a place he has a lawful right to be, the object’s ‘incriminating character is readily apparent[,] and the officer has a lawful right of access to the evidence.’” Hoskins v. State, 172 So. 3d 1242, 1248 (¶12) (Miss.

2020If no 11 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 17 exception is found, the evidence seized as a result of the search “should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.” Id. at (¶7) (quoting Walker v. State, 881 So. 2d 820, 827 (¶7) (Miss. 2004).

2016“A search is not unreasonable when it is based on probable cause.” Walker v. State, 881 So.2d 820, 827 (¶ 15) (Miss. 2004). ¶8, One exception to the warrant requirement is consent.

2017However, the United States Supreme Court and the Mississippi Supreme Court differ in their opinions of "what constitutes a valid consent." Gazaway , 708 So.2d at 1388 (¶ 9).

2017With respect to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, "the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that a voluntary consent to a search eliminates an officer's need to obtain a search warrant." Gazaway v. State , 708 So.2d 1385 , 1388 (¶ 9) (Miss.

2001"In the case of a search incident to arrest, the exception to the warrant requirement is founded upon the reasonable concern that the arrestee might have a weapon on his person or within reach, and that he may attempt to destroy evidence which is within grasp." Ferrell v. State, 649 So.2d 831, 833 (Miss.1995) (citing Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 295 , 93 S.Ct. 2000, 2003 , 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973)).

2001"In the case of a search incident to arrest, the exception to the warrant requirement is founded upon the reasonable concern that the arrestee might have a weapon on his person or within reach, and that he may attempt to destroy evidence which is within grasp." Ferrell v. State, 649 So.2d 831, 833 (Miss.1995) (citing Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 295 , 93 S.Ct. 2000, 2003 , 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973)).

1997NOTES [1] Moore died from a massive heart attack on May 11, 1990. [2] The officer was able to cite for the record two federal cases that resulted in convictions based upon the information from this same confidential informant. [3] Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), recognized the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement when probable cause and exigent circumstances exist.

1997NOTES [1] Moore died from a massive heart attack on May 11, 1990. [2] The officer was able to cite for the record two federal cases that resulted in convictions based upon the information from this same confidential informant. [3] Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), recognized the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement when probable cause and exigent circumstances exist.

2024Under the automobile exception, “[i]f a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits police to search the vehicle without more.” Roche, 913 So. 2d at 313 (¶23) (quoting Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 (1999)).

2005Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466 , 119 S.Ct. 2013 , 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999).

2020“The State bears the burden to show that a warrantless search falls under one of the permissible exceptions.” Id. “[E]xcepted from the warrant requirement are items within a police officer’s plain view or plain feel.” Id. at (¶8).

2020“The State bears the burden to show that a warrantless search falls under one of the permissible exceptions.” Id. “[E]xcepted from the warrant requirement are items within a police officer’s plain view or plain feel.” Id. at (¶8).

2009See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (announcing the so-called good-faith exception to the warrant requirement). ¶ 46.

2009See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (announcing the so-called good-faith exception to the warrant requirement). ¶ 46.