If the police execute a search warrant on my home, what happens if they find (theoretically) my hidden stash of German dwarf amputee porn? Obviously it is not illegal, but do the police just ignore it? How are they supposed to handle ambiguous sexual paraphernalia like say, a dildo in a sock drawer, or a consensual bondage den in the basement? Don’t need answer fast. Just curious. Do police officers routinely rifle through every inch of a home when searching for incriminating evidence?
The are going to look anywhere that the specific item(s) could be within the limits of the search warrant. A search warrant is going to specific what they are looking for and where they are allowed to look. If they are looking for a stolen tiger, they can’t look inside small drawers where a tiger couldn’t fit. However, almost any warrant is going to be worded in such a way as to allow them to search just about everything in your house. So they are going to see all of your private stuff. If the item is not illegal, it will be ignored. Well, they will probably make comments about it and tell stories about it later, but for all legal purposes, the items are ignored. Anything they find that is either illegal, or otherwise mentioned in the warrant, is confiscated.
Yeah, they are legally constrained to the limits of the search warrant, but they’re not necessarily going to be nice about it. Many of the cops I know would have the attitude that only bad guys have search warrants against them and therefore you deserve any shit they can throw your way, regardless of how it all plays out in the end.
Yes the search warrant will be limited to places you could reasonably be expected to find the item you are searching for. Full stop. If you are looking for a stolen car you can’t open up drawers and closets. If you are looking for a gun you can’t open up envelopes.* I don’t know of a judge that will allow you to word a search warrant so ambiguously that it will allow you to “search just about everything in your house.”
*more accurately you can look but anything you find will be inadmissible and any investigative leads from that will be fruits of the poisonous tree.
To get a search warrant you have to prove probable cause to a judge. So yeah, if there is a search warrant there is already proof that it is a bad guy just most likely not enough to make an arrest yet. Fishing expeditions are not allowed.
Would a judge take into account that something large could be disassembled? I could’ve stolen a car and sold most of the parts, but still got a whole bunch of parts in my closest.
I think using the word ‘proof’ there is going a bit far. The judge (in theory) needs some evidence that there’s a crime, but the evidence isn’t examined or disputed by anyone but the police, so it’s hardly proof (I mean, if there’s enough indisputable evidence to prove a case, why are they searching instead of arresting the guy?). And, even with the best intentions by the investigators, it’s not difficult for them to be mistaken about something.
I think Loach (from experience) has it best. The police are investigating something. They go to a judge and convince him that there’s a passably good chance something(s) they are looking for, as part of the investigation, can be found in a specific place - a place of business, a personal space, whatever - can be found there. If their reasons seem credible, the judge gives them a warrant to search the location for those items.
As mentioned - it depends what the warrant says. If it says “drugs”, then they can open all sorts of places - if it says gun, then anything too small for a gun is off limits. If they are looking for specific clothing, small spaces are off limits.
For the OP, if the items found are weird but not illegal, they are not something the police can do anything about. They have no more right to take your copies of German dwarf porn than they have the right to take you copy of the latest bestseller or video game.
I suppose if they happen to remember a dwarf amputee was murdered last month, then they could pass on to that investigative team that “here’s a guy with an predilection for your victim” and you may get a few interviews.
However, perhaps someone like Loach can chime in, but the police would need a lot more that “he’s into that shit” to get a warrant now to look for the dwarf’s murder weapon in your house simply based on your sexual inclinations. They would have to show some connection between you and the victim - there’s still a difference between “probable cause” and “shot in the dark”.
And if the original police warrant meant they had no business opening your porn stash, then that would be an interesting case as to whether the resulting murder weapon evidence from the second warrant gets tossed. IIRC it would come down to whether the police would make the connection eventually anyway or something like that (“inevitable discovery”?).
Going back to the “stolen car” example… “We were searching for the keys to the stolen car. Which is how we found the stash of cocaine in the desk drawer.”
Probably not, I suppose, unless the warrant explicitly included the keys from the outset, but I almost could imagine it.
If the warrant said “look for stolen car” then anywhere in the house you cannot hide a car is off limits. I guess if it says “car parts” then you can look in closets and drawers, but I would doubt that opening the kitchen drawers with the justification “the headlight rim would fit in here” would fly. I wonder how specific things get. If the police a reduced to looking in cigar boxes for keys and haven’t found anything bigger that’s an offending car part, no engines, carburetors, headlights, or hubcaps, I suspect the court would find that too much of a reach.
After all, beyond a certain point, most car parts aren’t specifically identifiable unless they were customized (keys being the exception).
In the UK (and I would assume in the USA also) a range of material is illegal. Material including extreme horror films, hard core pornography (bestiality and, I seem to recall, fisting, excrement based stuff) plus of course pedophilia based porn. Oh, and terrorist / hate crime material.
If the UK police see unusual pornography they can seize it and it would then be examined later (insert own joke here) to determine whether it is actually criminal in nature. They have the options of returning it later, destroying it and not pursuing a conviction or pursuing a conviction.
There have been plenty of cases involving art galleries and the hoary old “Is is art or porn?” issue. One case gained some notoriety since it involved Fine Art photographs of two naked young girls owned by Elton John.
So while it is unclear (to me) whether German Dwarf Amputee Porn is strictly illegal in the UK (the dwarf part could be interpreted as pseudo-pedophile) it could potentially be investigated further.
Certainly if the UK police entered the home of a suspected sex offender they would likely seize all magazines plus every computer and digital storage device determining the legality of the contents later.
During the execution of the first search warrant I was ever on I came a across what looked like an old-style medical bag. You know, the kind doctors used to carry on house calls. What better place to keep the drugs, right? I opened it and discovered a wide array of dildos and other sex toys. The target, who was home at the time, was a women in her mid-20s. She was mortified to say the least. If I recall correctly, I didn’t even say anything. She knew what I had found since she was present for the search.
Over the next 20 years I participated in hundreds of search warrants. It wasn’t unusual to come across stuff like that. If it wasn’t contraband we ignored it (after a few laughs, sometimes) and moved on.
As to the scope of the search - you were always hoping to come across something unexpected, a huge stash of cash or illegal weapons or something, even if it wasn’t named in the warrant. Most warrants I wrote included "papers and records pertaining to the crime of “fill-in the blank”, which allowed you to search almost anywhere. If it was a stolen car operation you would search for VIN plates, titles, registrations, receipts etc. Occasionally, we would get the bonus find. When that happened (and when we expected there might be more of the “bonus” stuff) we would stop and apply for a new warrant - just to be sure nothing would get suppressed. I never had a warrant overturned or evidence seized under a warrant suppressed.
It is not up to the judge to take into account anything. It is up to the affiant to make his case why he needs to search for something. It is up to the judge to determine if there is probable cause. In my experience the search warrant has to be extremely detailed. The days of a pencil whipped SW were gone long before I got hired. And the SW is the first thing that the defense will attempt to surpress.
For accuracy I have to say that when I say search warrant I am actually talking about two documents (at least here in NJ). The affidavit for the search warrant is the detailed request explaining all of the probable cause for the search warrant. The search warrant itself is a short usually one paged document that simply states what, where and when something can be searched. That is what is presented to the property owner at the time of the search but both documents are certainly discoverable.
It’s not proof, it’s probable cause. 1 even if there is enough probable cause to arrest you still gather all additional evidence. You can’t have too much. 2 as I’ve explained here before probable cause is the level of proof for an arrest but even with PC a prosecutor will not go forward with a charge unless he believes he can win.
And of course there is nothing saying a search warrant can only be executed before arrest. Many happen after arrest to gather additional information.
If in the course of a SW you come across a kilo of coke. That doesn’t mean you can then increase the scope of the search. You have to secure the scene then go and get the warrant amended. It’s a little bit of a pain in the ass but easier than getting everything suppressed. If that coke was within the scope of the initial SW you are fine. If you are prying up floorboards looking for a car there will probably be a problem with the evidence at trial.
I was thinking of instances where the description of items to be seized includes items which may have been used in the commission of the crime, are related to the crime, or somehow document the criminal activity. In the car theft example, I would think that a warrant could include car theft tools like slim-Jims, OBD Port Keys, Key Cloning devices, or other smaller items, or even the actual car keys themselves. If the car theft was suspected to be part of a larger operation, the warrant might include any documentation related to the criminal activity. That would give the officers a lot of leeway in the execution of the warrant.
For the tiger scenario, I would assume the warrant would not just include the tiger itself, but tiger food, tiger cages, tiger toys, or any other equipment used to take care of or transport a tiger. Tiger brushes, maybe?
Maybe I was being too broad by saying “almost any”, but I believe a great deal of search warrants can be written in a way that justifies a pretty thorough search which can include almost everything at the specified location.
extreme horror films, hard core pornography (bestiality and, I seem to recall, fisting, excrement based stuff) would only be seized if they related to some other crime like rape or assault. Certainly the others would likely lead to a term in prison.
They find the guy on the street, selling dope. They arrest him. Now they want to search his house to see if there’s more dope there. They need a warrant to do so.
Yes, in the USA, IIRC thanks to free speech, pretty much everything goes. Kiddie porn is pretty explicitly defined - the victim has to be under 18 or presented as under 18.
Not sure about extremes and possession, I seem to recall that the “community standards” law related to importing and selling.
Thus proving the picture is obviously art.
Of course “what is art?” is a classic argument. There are at least three famous rock albums depicting naked underage girls that I can think of; at the other extreme, you have popes centuries ago covering up even the baby angels’ bits with fig leaves.
“Art is in the eye of the beholder”. Some people even cover up art-deco stylized breasts.
On-topic question: if you are asking for a warrant for “paperwork related to stolen cars” don’t you have to show the judge why there would be paperwork? Logically, how many criminals issue receipts?
