About a year ago I saw a video (which I can’t find now) where the police were in confrontation with a dad on the doorstep of his house, because they were searching for his child (regarding some crime) The parents demanded to see a search warrant to let the cops in. The cops said they had a warrant but it was in the computer (in their car) and “If you don’t step aside you’re going to jail.” Not knowing what to do, the dad eventually caved in and the cops started searching the home.
Is this legal? I thought the cops had to present you with a warrant in the US. Seems that in the above example, the cop could have easily faked a warrant.
IANAL, but faking a warrent would serve no purpose. Any evidence the police found wouldn’t be admissible in court.
IANAL either, but I woulda said that’s the POINT of a warrant. My understanding has always been that a cop needs your permission to search WITHOUT a warrant. To search without your permission, that’s what the warrant is for.
Ever see them yell “Search Warrant” and bust down someone’s door in the middle of the night (without showing anything to anybody) on a show like “Cops”? IANAL either but I assume they wouldn’t be doing so if it weren’t legal.
Like everyone else IANAL but I believe at some point you have to physically be handed something that passes as/for a search warrant in your jurisdiction. They may have broken down your door and already handcuffed you and looked for things in plain sight, but there is going to be sore sort of piece of paper involved. And get a copy for the defense attorney. Lets say the police kick in your door at noon and the warrant shows it was signed and issued at 12:10 or it has the wrong date or address ------- you may just have had the luckiest day of your life.
This is, I think, correct. You will have the warrant in your hands as they search your house, and unless they suspect that they could be walking into an ambush, they’ll probably ring your doorbell, hand you the warrant, and let you stand outside and read it while they search. However, if the cops believe that it might be dangerous to warn you that they’re about to do a search, they may break down the door, cuff you, and then hand you the warrant.
(bolding mine)
IANAL
IIRC, *‘searching for someone involved in a crime’ *without a warrant, is only allowed in the case of a felony crime when the perpetrator is known (or reasonably suspected) to be on the premises.
As others have already said, if the cops have a warrant it will be presented. It might be after they’ve kicked the door in and you’re in cuffs, but they will have a physical document to present to you. For one thing, the warrant will (should) state exactly what they are searching for.
In the case of a child being abused or neglected, there is no requirement for a warrant. The cops are going to come in and verify whether or not a child is ‘in harms way’. I’m not sure whether or not they can act upon any other illegal things that they observe.
Again IANAL, BUT this is my understanding of the law here in Texas. YMMV
Neither am I
At least in Sweden a police office is allowed to frisk you or do a house search without a warrant if there is a risk that you will get rid of evidence if it’s not done at once and all conditions for issuing a warrant are met.
I was on some ride-alongs for a few weeks, a long time ago, with an animal cruelty investigation team. They served a warrant on one of the rides I was on. They had to work very closely with police as they weren’t officers themselves, and they wrote the request for the warrant together. It was a search for fighting dogs and the paraphernalia for training and fighting.
While the fine particulars are fuzzy, I remember the warrant had to be very specific as to exactly what the search was for and also had to list specifically where they wanted to search. Like if the property had a detached garage, basement, or shed, those had to be specifically listed. If they weren’t, they could not be legally searched.
That’s a “no-knock” warrant, which can be issued if circumstances call for it (e.g., in a drug bust where the suspects could flush the evidence down the toilet when you knock), but is not standard.
Other than that, in the US, the cops are required to show you the warrant.
I get my fine points of law from the news and L&O, but for what it’s worth -
The warrant is to ensure that police only have a good reason to search what they search. They can’t be on a fishing expedition looking for any reason to charge the perp. If the grounds for the warrant are found to be too flimsy, the search results may be inadmissible.
For example, in one case the son is suspected of drug dealing or something; the warrant said the son’s room and common areas. The father warns the police they cannot search the study, it is his private office. If they are looking for, say a gun or a pair of shoes, they cannot search a pile of papers or open something too small to contain what they are looking for.
The OP however brings up an interesting detail. The cops probably had an arrest warrant for the kid, not a warrant to search the house. IIRC the police can only enter a residence in hot pursuit, i.e. if they are chasing someone and thought they saw him go in there. Otherwise, I think they need a warrant to enter the house, which means they need reasonable grounds to believe he is there.
An arrest warrant of itself does not give the police free reign to march in anywhere they want. I suppose reasonable grounds for a search would include “this is where he lives” or “The neighbour reported seeing him enter 5 hours ago”. I also suspect the search warrant can only be executed once, it’s not a license to keep marching in evey few hours until the person is found. Each new search would require a new warrant with a new grounds for expecting the perp to be there. Eventually a judge might get tired of the keystone kops routine.
There is also “probable cause”. Say the police are driving around a neighborhood on patrol, hear gunfire, screams, and breaking glass. Since that could be evidence of a possible crime in progress with hazard to life and limb they would be allowed to investigate, including entering private property. However, your neighbor going up to a random cop and accusing you of being a theif or growing pot in your bedroom closet is not sufficient grounds for a search.
Probable cause is kind of subjective and open to lots of interpretation, so I’d think most cops would prefer to get a search warrant if there’s time.
The OP does not sound like it was a case of a search warrant but probably an arrest warrant. The legality of entering into a structure to find a suspect will vary widely due to the circumstances and from state to state. Officers probably wouldn’t have a paper copy of an arrest warrant with them.
In the case of a search warrant there is really no need to not present a copy. I’m trying to remember if there is any case law where you MUST be presented with a copy prior to the search. You absolutely will get a copy at some point. It won’t be on a computer. It will be a pretty extensive packet which must be signed by a judge. I can see some exigent circumstances when an officer may need to start a search after receiving word from someone that the warrant has been approved but before he has a copy. Faking a warrant makes no sense because you just destroyed your case.
I helped prepare a half-dozen or so search warrants back in the day, when I was an Ohio prosecutor. The cops took along two copies, keeping one and leaving the other with the owner of the premises or whoever they found there. As noted earlier, the more specific the warrant, the better from a legal standpoint - the search warrant must describe with particularity what is to be searched, and what is being looked for. An overbroad warrant will either not be approved by the judge, or will lead to the later suppression of any evidence seized.
An odd detail: if the search warrant was to be executed at night (which wasn’t typical), we were trained to prepare the warrant with a reference to “the night season.” Not “nighttime,” but “the night season.” Nobody seemed to know why.
In fact, on L&O there is the occasional bit where the cops are on their way to a location when the prosecutor phones them and says “OK, I have the signed warrant”. SO presumably presenting the warrant or even holding the signed is not ncessary, but it must be authorized by a judge before the search is executed.
The other proviso is that the searchers better be sure of the scope of contents before executing it. If they search the wrong places or find something not covered by the warrant, then the evidence is excluded and the officers and city/state are open to any liability.
Partially incorrect. U.S. v Leon established the “good faith” exception. If the police believe they are operating with a valid warrant, and the warrant is later demonstrated to be flawed, that does not necessarily invalidate the evidence gathered. Searching at noon with a warrant time-stamped 12:10pm - sure. The address with numbers transposed or the name spelled wrong - no.
Do you know of any case law where the paper copy must be served before the search can begin? I know that is almost always the case. I have always had a warrant in my hand when I have been involved in a case. But I can think of some circumstances in which it is not exigent enough for a warrantless search but timely enough that someone might feel they shouldn’t wait for the copy to get there.
I have also often been involved in cases in which some evidence or probable cause of for a crime is observed and we seized the property (such as a car) or secured the structure or room until such time as a warrant was approved. We were not allowed to search and it would have screwed the case but legally we were able to deny access to their property until a warrant could be obtained.
Never go by what L&O says. I do like the show but they play fast and loose with the law whenever it suits them.
So, is being told of a warrant by phone not legal? I would presume the overwhelming issue is “did the signed warrant exist and did you abide by its restrictions”.
Nobody has said definitvely a warrant MUST BE produced on demand during a search or DOES NOT NEED TO BE.
Hey, good to have you here, Loach!
It’s been awhile since I was involved in preparing search warrants, but IIRC in Ohio, at least, the hard copy of the search warrant must be provided to the owner (or whoever’s there) upon demand, or otherwise at the conclusion of the search. Different states’ laws may vary, of course, and some police departments may even adopt policies that are more citizen-friendly than required by law. I have heard of police securing a car or structure until a search warrant could be obtained, but was never involved in a case where that was done.