54 VALE VS LOUISIANA

FACTS:

The officers got arrest warrant for the defendant (referring to Vale). They then went to the
defendant's house where they saw the defendant making a drug deal. The officers arrested the
defendant outside his house and then the officers went inside the house and in the back room,
where they found drugs. The defendant was convicted and now he appeals and argues that the
evidence obtained in the house was result of an unlawful search. The Supreme Court of Lousiana
affirmed the conviction by ruling that the search of the house was incident to a lawful arrest.

ISSUE:

Was the search of the back room of the house incident to a lawful arrest?

HELD: No

RD: The court ruled that a search is incident to a lawful arrest "only if it is substantially
contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest." The
court ruled that since the defendant was arrested outside his house, the back room of the house
was not within the immediate vicinity of the arrest and also since the officers did not have
exigent circumstances, or the consent of the defendant, they had no right to search the house.
The conviction was reversed.

55 NOLASCO VS PANO

FACTS:

The case at bar is for the motion for partial reconsideration of both petitioners and
respondents of the SC’s decision that the questioned search warrant by petitioners is null and
void, that respondents are enjoined from introducing evidence using such search warrant,
but such personalities obtained would still be retained, without prejudice to petitioner
Aguilar-Roque. Respondents contend that the search warrant is valid and that it should be
considered in the context of the crime of rebellion, where the warrant was based.
Petitioners on the other hand, on the part of petitioner Aguilar-Roque, contend that a lawful
search would be justified only by a lawful arrest. And since there was illegal arrest of
Aguilar-Roque, the search was unlawful and that the personalities seized during the illegal
search should be returned to the petitioner. The respondents, in defense, concede that the
search warrants were null and void but the arrests were not.

ISSUE: WON the articles seized were illegally obtained.

HELD: Yes.

RD: "Any evidence obtained in violation of this . . . section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding" (Sec. 4[2]). This constitutional mandate expressly adopting the
exclusionary rule has proved by historical experience to be the only practical means of
enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures by
outlawing all evidence illegally seized and thereby removing the incentive on the part of state
and police officers to disregard such basic rights. What the plain language of the
Constitution mandates is beyond the power of the courts to change or modify. All the articles
thus seized fag under the exclusionary rule totally and unqualifiedly and cannot be used
against any of the three petitioners.