Unlawful Search and Seizure of Property Without Justification
According to the investigative record of the criminal case charging the defendant with receiving stolen property, the victim’s vehicle was stolen by an unidentified assailant. Subsequently, police conducted a search of the defendant’s residence without a warrant and seized bicycle equipment. The police conducting the search did not make a detailed record of the search and seizure as described above; the investigating officer had the victim view the equipment, and the victim confirmed that it was the equipment that had been lost.
It is requested that the court determine to what extent the evidence in this case may be received. The answer is “physical evidence, documentary evidence, and witnesses, pursuant to Section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Act, persons who could prove whether the defendant is guilty or innocent may be cited as evidence, but must be witnesses who did not arise from inducement, promises, threats, deception, or obtained through impropriety.
In this case, police searched the defendant’s residence and seized property without making a detailed record of the search and seizure, which is a violation of Section 112 and 103 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The police and the seized property are both persons and physical evidence, and they originated from . It is prohibited to receive them as evidence in the case. Even if the victim confirms that the bicycle equipment has been lost, the defendant cannot be deemed the assailant or guilty due to the lack of evidentiary proof that the police seized the property at the defendant’s residence.
The District Court of has two judges; one judge, , resigned.