CHAPTER 4 SEARCH AND SEIZURE

The rule of law on search and seizure are sometimes confusing. However, the law enforcement
officer conducting search and seizure by virtue of, or without a search warrant, must not allow
him or her to experience dilemma, although the complex rule of law means that he or she can
often experience problems with the conduct of searches and seizures, which oftentimes results
in evidence inadmissible in court.

Moreover, the conduct of search and seizure of contrabands or fruits of the crime is governed
by constitutional and statutory provisions, and statutes that regulate the conduct of the specific
law enforcement operations, which directly govern the search and seizure of contraband
evidence. Procedural rules also need to be considered by the law enforcement officer engaged
in search and seizure.

What is Search Warrant?

As provided for by Section 1, Rule 126 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure, search
warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a
judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him or her to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court. The following are the things or properties to be
seized: (1) property subject of the offense; (2) property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds
or fruits of the crime; and (3) property used or intended to be used for committing an offense.

What is Search and Seizure?

Search and seizure is a necessary law enforcement officer's exercise of mandated powers and
functions in the ongoing pursuit of criminals.
Searches and seizures are used to produce evidence for the prosecution of the alleged
criminals. The law enforcement officer has the power to search and seize, but individuals are
protected against arbitrary and unreasonable intrusions of law enforcement agencies.

Search and seizure is an examination of an individual person, house or effects, or other

buildings and premises to discover contrabands or some evidence of guilt to be used in the
prosecution of a criminal action. It is a legal procedure whereby a law enforcement officer
searches a person's property and confiscates any relevant evidence to the crime.

It is a law enforcement operations procedure used by the law enforcement agencies by which
its law enforcement officer who is, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a
search of a person's body, property or premises and confiscate any relevant evidence found in
connection with the crime, or contraband relatively with the commission of an offense.

Constitutional Guarantee
As provided for by Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, this constitutional guarantee
is provided to the individual person, such as "the rights 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
be issued except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he or she may
produce, and particularly describing the place and premises to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized."

Corollary with the preceding constitutional provision, the rights against unreasonable search
and seizure is a core rights implicit in the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Even in
the absence of a constitution, individuals have fundamental and natural rights against
unreasonable searches and seizures under natural law. Moreover, the violation of the rights to
privacy produces a humiliating effect that cannot be rectified anymore. This is why there is no
other justification to speak for a search, except for a search warrant. On the other hand, in a
warrant of arrest, the person to be arrested can always post bail to prevent the deprivation of
liberty.

How Probable Cause Established?

Here are the instances how probable cause can be established:

1. Probable cause in filing of information. The facts and circumstances that would engender a
well-grounded belief that a crime has been committed and the person to be charged is probably
guilty thereof.
2. Probable cause in the issuance of a search warrant. The facts and circumstances that would
lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to believe that there has been a crime committed
and the things and objects connected to the crime committed are in the place to be searched.
3. Probable cause in the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The facts and circumstances that would
engender a well-grounded belief that a crime has been committed and the person to be arrested
had committed it.

Application for Search Warrant

As provided for by Section 2, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, an
application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: (1) any court within whose
territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed; and (2) for compelling reasons stated in the
application, any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of
the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the
warrant shall be enforced.
Moreover, as a rule, an application for search warrant shall be filed before any court within
whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. However, there are exceptions to the
above general rule. These are: (1) the application may also be made before any court within the
judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is
known; and (2) the application may also be filed before any court within the judicial region
where the warrant shall be enforced.

In both exceptions, filing in such courts requires compelling reasons stated in the application.
The rule requiring a statement of compelling reasons is of mandatory nature. However, if the
criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where the
criminal action is pending.
All application for search warrant shall be approved for filing by the concerned law
enforcement executive. The application shall indicate the following data: (1) the law
enforcement office applying for the search warrant; (2) name of the law enforcement officer
applying for the search warrant; (3) name of the subject, if known; (4) address or place to be
searched; (5) specific statement of things or articles to be seized; and (6) sketch of the place to
be searched. All approved applications shall be recorded in the log book, duly maintained for
the purpose, indicating the name of the applicant, name of the respondent, nature of the
offense, and date of the application.

Rules on Search and Seizure

The following are the rules on search and seizure:

1. The general rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out through a search warrant;
otherwise, such search and seizure become unreasonable and things seized in violation of the
rule on search and seizure shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

2. Where the arrest of the accused is lawful, having been caught in "flagrante delicto," there is
no need for a search warrant for the seizure of the fruit of the crime as well as for the body
search upon the same being incidental to lawful arrest. him or her.
3. The warrantless search and seizure as an incidental to a suspect's lawful arrest may be
extended beyond the person arrested, to include the premises or surroundings under his or her
immediate control.

Instances of Warrantless Search

Searches and seizure of contrabands are subject to the constraints of constitutional search and
seizure laws and court rules. Traditional principles are applicable to warrantless search as
follows:

1. Applying Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. This provides the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures. The two primary requirements are necessary to apply: (a) is government action
involved; and (b) does the person affected have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
place to be searched or thing to be seized?

a. Government Action. In most circumstances, government action is implicated when a

government official conducts a search. Generally speaking, the provisions of said section's
limitations do not apply to searches by private parties unless those searches are conducted at
the direction of the government. Private parties who independently acquire evidence of a crime
may turn it over to the law enforcement agency.
b. Reasonable Expectation. Section 2, Article III, applies when the searched party has an actual
expectation of privacy in the place to be searched or thing to be seized, and then only if it is an
expectation that society is prepared to recognize it as reasonable. Moreover, the courts treat a
motor vehicle as an extension of the "person's premises" for the said purposes. Hence, looking
at the motor vehicles glove compartment and trunks is akin to opening a "person's premises."

2. Satisfying Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. If Section 2, Article III is
implicated in the search and seizure at issue, then generally, the law enforcement officer must
obtain a warrant unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. The 13 of Dan

In warrantless searches, there are several well-recognized exceptions to securing a warrant.

Although the following is not an exhaustive list,the examples provide an idea of how the
common exceptions apply to the search and seizure:

a. Owner's Consent. Owner's consent is a valuable tool for an investigator. It can come from
many sources, whether implicitly or explicitly made by the owner of the premises, or some
other means. Some considerations include:

(1) A shared apartment can have multiple users. Consent by one occupant is always sufficient
to authorize a search of that person's private property, and in most instances is sufficient to
authorize a search of the common areas as well.

(2) Consent can be limited by the subject matter, duration, and other parameters. Consent can
be withdrawn at any time.

(3) The general rule is that a private-sector employer can consent to a search of an employee's
workplace. The rules are more complicated when the employer is the government.
b. Exigent Circumstances. To prevent the destruction of evidence, law enforcement officer can
immediately seize contrabands. In certain case in which there is an immediate danger, the law
enforcement officer may perform a limited search. Once the exigent circumstances end, so
does the exception.

c. Plain View Doctrine. The plain view doctrine may apply in some instances to the search and
seizure. For plain view doctrine to apply, the law enforcement officer must legitimately be in
the position to observe evidence, the incriminating character of which must be immediately
apparent. However, law enforcement officer should exercise caution when relying on the plain
view doctrine in connection with contraband, as rules concerning the application of the
doctrine sometimes produced technicalities relatively with the application of rules of evidence.

d. Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest. The need to protect the safety of the law enforcement
officer or to preserve evidence can justify a full search of an arrestee and a limited search of
the arrest scene. This search incidental to lawful arrest can include the search of the body and
the premises under control of the subject person arrested.

e. Inventory Search. The inventory search exception is intended to protect the property of a
person in custody and guard against claims of damage or loss. This exception is untested in the
courts, so it is uncertain whether the inventory search exception will allow law enforcement to
have access with evidence without a search warrant.

Searches and Seizures with Warrant

If the Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution is implicated in a search and seizure and
none of the search warrant exceptions applies, the law enforcement officer should obtain a
search warrant. Generally, the same rules apply when preparing and executing a search warrant
for contrabands. The law enforcement officer should consider the following when preparing
and executing a search warrant for the search and seizure of contraband, as follows:

1. Describing the Property. If the evidence sought is the subject of the offense, a fruit of the
crime, or contraband, then the warrant should describe the property to be seized as the target of
the search. The warrant should describe what the evidence is, and order the law enforcement
authorities to seize it in whatever form. Moreover, there is a need to avoid preparing a search
warrant that would unnecessarily restrict the scope of the search.
2. Conducting the Search. In some cases, a search of contraband can require significant
technical knowledge and should be conducted by an appropriate law enforcement officer who
is provided with a copy of the search warrant to ensure that the search is within its scope. Law
enforcement officer may also find evidence of a crime that is outside the scope of the search
warrant. In such an event, consider the securing of another search warrant to expand the scope
of the search.

3. Reasonable Accommodations. In some cases, it might be impractical to search the

contraband onsite. If the contraband is to be searched offsite, the law enforcement officer
should consider adding the description of the contraband to the affidavit to justify its removal.
If the contraband is removed for an off-scene search, the search must be completed in a timely
manner. The law enforcement officer may also consider returning the non-contraband items,
even commingled with the evidence of a crime, to accommodate a reasonable request from the
suspect or third party.
Requisites for Issuance of Search Warrant

As provided for by Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a search
warrant shall not be issued except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath, or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he or she may produce, particularly describing the place to be
searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
The validity of a search warrant rests on the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon
probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself or herself, and
not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge
must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses that he or she
may produce; and (4) the search warrant issued must particularly describe the place and
premises to be searched and persons or things to be seized.

Hence, a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely
than not, a crime has been committed, and that it was committed by the suspect. Probable
cause demands more than mere suspicion; this requires no less than the evidence which would
justify conviction. The judge, in determining probable cause, must consider the totality of the
circumstances made known to him or her and not by a fixed and rigid formula, and must
employ a flexible standard and totality of the circumstances.

The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or of the judge conducting the
examination. The court, therefore, is not in the position to disturb the factual findings of the
judge which led to the opinion issuance of the search warrant. Moreover, substantial basis
means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place
sought to be searched. The review of the records must show that the case, presents a substantial
basis to exist.

Personal Examination of the Applicant

As provided for by Section 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the judge
must, before issuing the search warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions
and answers, in writing and under oath, the applicant and the witnesses he or she may produce
on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together
with the affidavits.
Mere affidavits are not enough, and the judge must depose in writing the applicant and his or
her witnesses. The purpose thereof is to convince the judge of the existence of probable cause.
Search warrant is not issued on loose, vague, or doubtful basis of fact, and also not on mere
suspicion and belief. The judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must
make his or her own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. shivong A
Moreover, as provided for by Section 6, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
if the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that
there is probable cause to believe that it exists, he or she shall issue the search warrant, which
must be substantially in the form prescribed by the Rules of Court.

Requisites of a Valid Search Warrant

The requisites of a valid search warrant are as follows:

1. There must be a probable cause, that is, facts and circumstances that would engender a well-
founded belief in a reasonable, prudent, and discreet man or woman, that a crime has been
committed, and the things and objects to be seized can be found in the place to be searched.
2. It must be personally determined by the judge through searching and probing questions, that
is, questions not merely answerable by "yes or no," but can be answered by the applicant and
the witnesses on facts personally known to them.
3. Upon whom, that is, the applicant and the witnesses, he or she may produce are personally
examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation.

4. Based on what, that is, the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known
to them

5. The probable cause must be in connection with the specific

offense

6. The search warrant must specify and describe the person, place, or premises to be searched
and the things to be seized. 609 aliyebills M

7. The sworn statement of the applicant together with the affidavits of his or her witnesses
must be attached to the record.

Right to Break Door or Window

As provided for by Section 7, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the law
enforcement officer, if refused admittance to the place as directed in the search warrant after
giving notice of his or her purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or
window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the search warrant, to
liberate himself or herself, or any person lawfully aiding him or her when unlawfully detained
therein.

The law enforcement officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or
any part of a house or anything therein provided the following requisites are complied with: (1)
he or she gives notice of his or her purpose and authority; (2) he or she is refused admittance to
the place directed in search warrant despite the notice; and (3) the purpose of breaking is to
execute the search warrant, or to liberate himself or herself, or any person lawfully aiding him
or her when unlawfully detained therein.
Witnesses in Search and Seizure

As provided for by Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, no search
of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful
occupant thereof or any member of his or her family, or in the absence of the latter, two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. Lawful properties,
papers, effects, and other valuables not specifically indicated or described in the search warrant
shall not be taken.

In a Supreme Court decided case, entitled "Panuncio v. People, 593 SCRA 180, 1992," the
petitioner assailed the validity of the search and seizure which was allegedly conducted while
she was not in the house. The petitioner alleged that since the search and seizure was defective,
the items seized during the search could not be used against her.

The court categorically ruled, even assuming that the petitioner or any lawful occupant of the
house was not present when the search was conducted; the search was done in the presence of
at least two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. Clearly,
the requirements of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure has been
complied by the law enforcement authorities who conducted the search and seizure.

Time of Making Search and Seizure

As provided for by Section 9, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the search
warrant must be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the
person or in the place ordered to be searched during night time, in which case a direction may
be inserted that it may be served at any time of the day or night. The search warrant shall be
served in the daytime or night time, and such fact must be so directed in the search warrant.

If the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched
during night time, the search warrant may insert a direction that it may be served at any time of
the day or night. The rule
of issuance of search warrant allows for the exercise of judicial discretion in fixing the time
within which the search warrant may be served, subject to the statutory requirement fixing the
maximum time for its execution.

Moreover, as provided for by Section 10, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, a search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date of issuance.
Thereafter, it shall be void.
Receipt of the Property Seized

As provided for by Section 11, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the law
enforcement officer seizing the property by virtue of a search warrant must give a detailed
receipt for the said property to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the
search and seizure was made; or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at
least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion and residing in the same locality, leave a
receipt in the place in which he or she has found the seized property.
Moreover, there is no need for the owner of the things or properties seized to sign the receipt,
since it is tantamount to violation of rights against self-incrimination. Therefore, it is
considered as confession without the assistance of counsel. Finally, all the things or properties
searched and seized in the place or premises subject of the search warrant must be properly
documented, photographed, and properly turned over to the evidence custodian for proper
disposition.

Delivery and Inventory of Seized Property

As provided for by Section 12, Rule 126, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, here are
the guidelines in the delivery of property and inventory thereof to the court, and the
proceedings thereon:

1. The law enforcement officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who
issued the search warrant, together with an accurate inventory thereof duly verified under oath.

The following are the instances: (a) he or she must forthwith deliver the property seized to the
judge who issued the search warrant and (b)
he or she must, together with the delivery of the property, shall also submit a copy of an
accurate inventory of the property seized. Such inventory must be duly verified under oath. A
violation of this rule shall constitute a contempt of court.

9. Ten (10) days after the issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the
return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom the search warrant was
issued and require him or her to explain why no return was made. If the return has been made,
the judge shall ascertain whether Section 11 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure has
been complied with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him or her. The
judge shall see to it that the rules on paragraph (1) thereof had been complied with.

Moreover, the judge should know that his or her duty as justice of the peace does not end when
the search warrant was issued. When the evidence shows that the judge who issued the search
warrant did not require the law enforcement officer executing the search warrant to make an
accurate inventory of the things seized and submit the same to him or her, he or she is guilty of
gross ignorance of the law.
3. The return of the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on
search warrant who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the
judge. A violation of this rule shall constitute a contempt of court.

Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest

As provided for by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a person
lawfully arrested may be searched or seized for dangerous weapons, contrabands, or anything
which may have been used, or constitute proof in the commission of a criminal offense without
a search warrant.

It is a legal principle that allows the law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search of
an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee's immediate control. A valid arrest allows
the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within
the area of his or her immediate control.
The phrase "within the area of his or her immediate control" means the area from within which
he or she might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence." Thus, a gun on a table
or in the drawer in front of the person arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting law
enforcement officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested.

Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Unreasonable search and seizure is search and seizure by a law enforcement officer without a
search warrant and without a probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present. An
unreasonable search and seizure is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section 2,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Furthermore, evidence obtained from the unlawful search
may not be introduced as evidence in court. This evidence is referred to as "fruit of the
poisonous tree."

The Supreme Court held the exclusionary rule that applies to evidence gained from an
unreasonable search and seizure. A defendant who has been subjected to unreasonable search
and seizure will have no remedy against the law enforcement officer who performed the search
and seizure. This is due to qualified immunity, which is a doctrine that protects government
employee when he or she perform actions pertinent to his or her occupation as law
enforcement officer.
A law enforcement officer who qualifies for qualified immunity is protected from being
personally sued by the defendant. Because of qualified immunity, the exclusionary rule is often
a defendant's only remedy when law enforcement officer conducts an unreasonable search and
seizure, or violate the defendant's rights to unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore,
qualified immunity usually will be extended to the law enforcement officer who violates a
person's constitutional rights.
Under qualified immunity, a law enforcement officer may be sued only when no reasonable
person would believe that the law enforcement officer's conduct was legal. This exception
comes from an objective standard for reasonableness which "must be judged from the
perspective of a reasonable person on the scene," and a law enforcement officer whose conduct
is objectively unreasonable should find no shelter under a sequential qualified immunity test.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained
unconstitutionally or illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source, or the "tree,"
of the evidence, or the evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained, or the "fruit," from it is
tainted as well. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is a doctrine that is very similar to the
exclusionary rule. Under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, evidence obtained from
illegal arrest, search or seizure is not admissible in the court of law.

For example, if a law enforcement officer conducted an unconstitutional search and seizure of
premises of an individual person and obtained a key of the house, and evidence of a crime
obtained in the said house. The evidence would most likely be excluded under the "fruit of the
poisonous tree" doctrine. The testimony of witnesses elicited through legal means would not
necessarily be excluded.
Moreover, the doctrine is subject to four (4) main exceptions. The tainted evidence is
admissible if: (1) if it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; (2)
if it would inevitably been discovered despite the tainted source; (3) the chain of causation
between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is not attenuated; and (4) the search warrant
was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by law enforcement
officer in good faith.

However, the "attenuation doctrine," as an exception to the "fruit of the poisonous tree"
doctrine, allows certain evidence to be admitted in court if the linkages between the illegal law
enforcement conduct and the resulting evidence or the witness testimony are sufficiently
attenuated. For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies could be considered as
an independent intervening factor to sufficiently attenuate the connection between the
government's illegal discovery of the evidence and the witness's has voluntary made his or her
testimony.

CHAPTER REVIEW

IDENTIFICATION: Write the answer on the space provided before each number.
SEARCH WARRANT 1. It is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him or her to
search for property described therein and bring it before the court. personal
SECTION 2,ARTICLE OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION 2.This is the constitutional guarantee
that provides that an individual person, such as "the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

3.No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of
the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his or her family, or in the absence of LATTER

4. The general rule is that a search and seizure must be carried through with a SEARCH
WARRANT otherwise such search and seizure becomes unreasonable and things seized in
violation of this rule, shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE 5.This may apply in some instances to the search and seizure, and
the law enforcement officer must legitimately be in the position to observe evidence, the
incriminating character of which must be immediately apparent.

SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST 6.The need to protect the safety of law
enforcement officer or to preserve evidence can justify a full search of an arrestee and a limited
search of the arrest scene.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE 7.It is a necessary law enforcement officer's exercise of mandated
powers and functions in the ongoing pursuit of criminals.
8.The search warrant must be served in DAY TIME the unless the affidavit asserts that the
property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched.

FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE 9.It is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is
obtained unconstitutionally or illegally; it is a doctrine that is very similar to the exclusionary
rule.
10. An application for search warrant shall be filed with the proper court, as follows: (a) any
court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed; and (b) for compelling
reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where the crime was
committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the
judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.

ENUMERATION:

List the six (6) data that are required in the application of search warrant.

1.THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICE APPLYING FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT

2.NAME OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER APPLYING FOR THE SEARCH
WARRANT
3.NAME OF THE SUBJECT,IF KNOWN

4.ADDRESS OR PLACE TO BE SEARCHED

5.SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF THINGS OR ARTICLES TO BE SIEZED

6.SKETCH OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED

ESSAY (17-20): Explain in brief the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.