How often do search warrants list a person as the thing they’re searching for? How often do they list a person as the only thing they’re searching for? If a warrant includes, for instance, “Records relating to <whatever>”, those records could be on an SD card the size of a fingernail, and hidden almost anywhere.
Of course it’s not. I have workpapers, and I have business records. The difference is which ones I choose to keep. I mean, there are some objective criteria – like, the workpapers that directly support whatever we actually chose to do are business records, and all the ones where I farted around trying to determine what we ought to do are just workpapers, which we are only supposed to keep for a year or so. But the line isn’t bright.
(And I’m not doing anything illegal. It is my belief that my work is entirely proper and within the law. But it’s still gray what I should be keeping and what I should be destroying. )
Does anyone have the details on Nathan Hughes’ search warrant? Specifically, what was being searched for?
True, some things can be very small and well hidden.
You have to stand up and in a loud clear voice say “ I strenuously object.” It helps if you are holding a flag without gold fringe at the time.
Complying with a valid search warrant does not imply guilt or show that you agree with the basis of the warrant. Saying you object or are being “forced” by a threat of legal action is not necessary. Whether or not you object your lawyer is going after the warrant first thing in pre-trial hearings, probably months or longer after the search. The question will be if the information presented in the affidavit is correct. If the affiant was truthful. If the evidence presented to support the search warrant request raises to the level of probable cause. The judge isn’t going to ask “Did he object?”
I think there may be some confusion crossing over from warrantless searches. For example if you get pulled over by the police while driving. The police officer may say “Mind if I look in your trunk?”
My understanding is that the police cannot look in your trunk during a routine traffic stop without a warrant. If they ask the above question and you say no, they can’t do the search. But if you say yes, you’re consenting to the search and anything that’s found is admissible evidence.
As always, I am not a lawyer.
Are you sure?
IANAL but I recall some discussions around here (or somewhere) that noted the Supreme Court has deemed you do not have a right to remain silent unless you say you have a right to remain silent at a particular time. Just remaining silent does not protect you, despite what the constitution says.
I also thought I read here (or elsewhere) that there are some magic words you need to say when presented a search warrant. Something to the effect that you are only allowing them access for the bits on the warrant. If they are there to look for missing cows they cannot look in your cupboards. All too easy for them to “incidentally” stumble across something else that will get you in trouble.
I forgot my favorite answer to this!
A podcast about a man who insisted his lawyer object when the lawyer didn’t want to. That objection about who was on the jury was sufficient to go to the Supreme Court.
So yeah…you need to actually object sometimes.
I think what’s important is not to “object” but to be crystal clear that you are not consenting to anything for which they do need your permission.
Please don’t muddy up the water with motor vehicle talk. There is a motor vehicle exemption to the search warrant rule. You don’t need a warrant if you have probable cause. In my state that doesn’t give you the trunk but in most states it does.
That caselaw had to do with statements during an interview. IIRC the suspect was answering questions for a while and then didn’t answer a question that would have incriminated him. Not at all the same situation. If the warrant was obtained correctly and served legally the evidence will stand. If there is a problem with the affidavit or procedure during the search it won’t. You don’t have to state anything for the record. You don’t even have to be present. If it makes you feel better to say you don’t agree with the search warrant go right ahead.
Just the opposite. Consent has to be clearly articulated. You don’t consent by silence. In fact in my state consent has to be written and on camera unless there are very extenuating circumstances.
The case is Salinas v. Texas.
An arrest warrant, which I believe is different than a search warrant, certainly lists the person they’re looking for.
Which reminds me… if officers show up your door and yell, “We have a warrant! Let us in!” tell them to show you the warrant. Sometimes it will be an arrest warrant, and not a search warrant. IANAL, but I don’t think they can force their way into your home if all they have is an arrest warrant; they still need your permission to enter.
On further thought, I suppose they could have a search warrant and an arrest warrant.
It seems implausible in the extreme to me that a wanted criminal could indefinitely foil the police with a warrant for their arrest by simply staying indoors.
Now if what you meant was that having an arrest warrant does not permit them to search the premises, separately from just going in and grabbing the arrestee, I can agree with that logic. Although how often police would have an arrest warrant but not an accompanying search warrant is a matter of police / court practice I know nothing about.
Yes an arrest warrant and search warrant are two much different things. An arrest warrant is floating out there for anyone to serve. They usually have language that states any law enforcement officer must arrest the subject upon contact. Some random cop three counties away isn’t going to know what to search for if anything. They will only arrest. An arrest warrant won’t allow you to go into a residence unless there is some sort of exigency like fresh pursuit.
A search warrant is a long detailed document. An arrest warrant just says “Arrest this guy.” A separate search warrant can certainly be issued. They don’t have to be served together. A search warrant generally has an expiration date. The arrest warrant does not.
I’ve been retired for fifteen years and there are probably still some arrest warrants out there with my signature on them.
I remember being in court and seeing the judge unload on a guy. He had come back after years to clear up old warrants since he couldn’t get a license in his current state because of it. The officer involved had died from cancer years before. The guy got his problem cleared but he was hit with a pretty decent contempt fine.
I just want to explain why I use words like “generally.” As far as I know search warrants all have expiration dates. If it’s a physical search it is at few days to at most a week. A specific time and date in the near future may be asked for. More technical warrants involving third parties like Communications Data Warrants have longer expiration dates. It’s a requirement to send the judge a return of service in writing detailing the results of the search.
I say “generally” because in 50 states plus territories plus federal someone is probably doing something different that I’ve never heard of.