Those are almost always considered homes for search & use of force cases around here. @Loach cite links to this case which describes the criteria but what are called mobile homes or a trailer house here are not readily mobile.
When a vehicle is being used on the highways or is capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes, the two justifications for the vehicle exception come into play. First, the vehicle is readily mobile, and, second, there is a reduced expectation of privacy stemming from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on highways. Here, while respondent’s vehicle possessed some attributes of a home, it clearly falls within the vehicle exception.
Well, police shows are bad sources for how the law really works, but broadly speaking- yes. Of course the Police can look into that room (maybe the killer is hiding there? Maybe there is a broken window where the killer entered?) but not search.
According to the reports I’ve seen, the accused was living in a guest house on the property - i.e., a separate building you don’t have to go through the main house to access. Would it be reasonable to search the main house but not the guest house, or can the 4th Amendment be considered to cover the entire property?
IANAL but in general, you can search the crime scene(s) all you want, no warrant. But once you go beyond that it is a cursory search only- i.e. no opening drawers or boxes or especially safes or file cabinets.
I’m certain that a dedicated Homicide division of a big city police department has judges on speed dial who will grant almost any reasonable search warrant for the immediate vicinity of a murder scene.
What sort of justification do the detectives have to provide the judge? I saw an earlier discussion, that a warrant for drug trafficking (with probably cause) usually included in the fine print “and any records related to drug transactions” which would I presume allow the police to dig through filing cabinets for receipts and bank statements, maybe take phones and laptops to look for records - i.e. dig for whatever the heck they feel like.
Now you have a crime scene where someone possibly living in the house, used a knife - allegedly - to stab the victims. What sort of justification could they use to go on a deep dive in the house? Evidence of medication taken or not? Phone records of who contacted whom when? At what point is anyone justified in claiming “we should check google search history too…”? What sort of probably cause would be involved to justify such searches, or is simply “we have solid evidence he’s a suspect” sufficient to tear into his personal life looking for motive or planning?
I have written a number of search warrants. Certainly not the same amount of search warrants a big city homicide detective does. A search warrant has to contain an affidavit of probable cause that has to be pretty detailed. Some of it can be boiler plate but the particulars have to be very specific to the case.
You don’t want a search warrant that just gets approved. You want a search warrant that will survive the inevitable suppression hearing. That doesn’t mean there are never overly broad or sloppy search warrants. That’s why there are suppression hearings.
I thought if a judge signed off on it, the warrant was unquestionable. How does a suppression hearing get to second-guess the judge (short of the police lying on the affidavit or grossly mischaracterizing their probable cause)?
As I understand it, a warrant has to say what they are looking for and where they can look, why they believe it is in that private area. So presumably a lawyer can challenge the assumption as incorrect. Then there’s the scope. If the warrant says “we’re looking for a gun” or “a heavy blunt object” based on the murder victim’s injusries, then obviously that does not give the police the right to open file folders and read what’s inside. So that discovery could be ruled out. There’s no gun in that folder. Maybe if it appears the victim let the perp in, maybe check his phone to see what communication he had just before the murder - threats from someone he may have known, an appointment to drop by, etc.
(As I said, for drug trafficking for example, the warrant would also allow to search for financial records of transactions, money, etc. so the police could be fairly nosey if they wanted to)
I’m just wondering what probable cause would exist to justify looking into, for example, Google searchs of a perp’s activity, at home, not at the murder scene.
Because it gives the defense a chance to challenge the prosecution and that’s important for due process. When the judge signs off on the warrant, they have only heard the police’s side.
But this goes to my point. What sort of probable cause would lead the police to think that the perp looked it up at all? At least, what probable cause serious enough to request a warrant? I can see a warrant for a phone - “we need to see what he was doing in the time leading up to the crime, was there any communication with the victim…”
The real question is, will google fight such a subpoenaed? Because if someone served with a subpoena does not object, then it doesn’t really matter what the standard is.
A law enforcement agency conducting an investigation doesn’t need court approval to issue a subpoena. They might need approval from the prosecutor’s office, but that’s just making sure they have cooperation from a collaborative department.
Additionally, these third parties can choose to cooperate with law enforcement (as @ASL_v2.0 just posted ahead of me) without any say of the person who used the platform. Meta, for example, will report any child porn that ends up in one of their databases, and never tell the account holder (same with phone providers who offer cloud data storage).
Meaning, what you post online is rarely your sole property; by using a platform, you’ve given that platform access to your data, which they can do with as they choose.
(I think there’s an interesting case with regard to one’s energy consumption.
Police look for marijuana grow houses by seeking out homes with outsized electric bills; if you have a house that is growing hundreds of plants, and you are using lights to simulate grow cycles, you will have an unusually high power bill.
Police ask the electric company for that data, and the courts have ruled that they are free to share it without regard to the “privacy rights” of the homeowner. Basically, the amount of electricity you use each month is not private information. And police then use that information as a basis to ask for a search warrant of the home)