# Police want to search my home in murder investigation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107 "2009-11-10T23:26:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/241 "2009-11-12T22:58:01Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > See the link I posted in #172, on Page 4 of this thread. Or just google “Plain View Doctrine”. Yes, that’s why I’m asking this question. I’m specifically saying that my machine is NOT in plain view. It’s _hidden_ under the stairs. The warrant specifies that they are looking for X and in the course of a thorough search for X, they come across Y hidden away in a secret compartment. Can they seize Y, or do they have to get a new warrant and come back to search for all things related to Y? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/242 "2009-11-12T23:01:40Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > Yes, that’s why I’m asking this question. I’m specifically saying that my machine is NOT in plain view. It’s _hidden_ under the stairs. The warrant specifies that they are looking for X and in the course of a thorough search for X, they come across Y hidden away in a secret compartment. Can they seize Y, or do they have to get a new warrant and come back to search for all things related to Y? I think plain view still applies. Under the warrant, they are legally entitled to search anywhere X might reasonably be concealed. If they find Y, which is obviously illegal, in a place X reasonably may have been, I think they can seize it/arrest you for it. Now if they were searching for stolen cars, and found a small bag of drugs in your nightstand, that would not fall under plain view, because a car could not be in your nightstand. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/243 "2009-11-12T23:11:25Z")
Would you support having the police come into your house and try on your clothes? It has the same likelihood of helping them find the girl, assuming you’re not the kidnapper. But surely if the police think it’s a good idea, then it must be, right? ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/244 "2009-11-12T23:16:52Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I put it pretty clearly in the post you quoted from: If you are breaking a law already, then you deserve to be caught and punished. All of this complaining about “What if I have something illegal out that the police see it?” just means you do not want to take responsibility for any illegal thing you’ve done. Um, yeah, that’s precisely correct. As I said before, my conscience is clean and I’m pretty sure I am not currently a criminal, but if by pure ignorance or accident I have violated some obscure and/or insensible law, I would much rather never be made to take responsibility for it. Do you have a problem with that? Do you really expect any sane individual to feel otherwise? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > You consider that privacy? Why don’t you just say that anything you do is ok as long as you don’t get caught? Murder is ok…as long as you hide the body well enough. Rape is ok…if you can threaten her to keep silent. Privacy isn’t a de facto bulwark against illegal activities. When did I say anything that could be construed as “murder is OK as long as you don’t get caught?” I said that privacy includes the right to hide evidence of illegal behavior. Guess what: it does. In all criminal prosecutions, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime, and the accused cannot be compelled to incriminate himself. This is a bedrock principle of our justice system. It doesn’t mean you have the right to commit crimes. It just means that you have the right to the presumption of innocence and that your reticence to incriminate yourself cannot be held against you. It means that if the state wishes to accuse you of a crime, it must prove its case fairly. This is done to protect the innocent, but it necessarily protects the guilty as well. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > And, lest we get off track here, the OP is asking about cops asking for cooperation VOLUNTARILY. Your privacy rights are irrelevent to the discussion They are very relevant when you are arguing that it is the action of a “decent” person to voluntarily give them up. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > If you read through the topic, you will see that a counterpoint to your argument has already been made. No citizen has a right to not be a suspect. If the police deem that the pool of suspects is everyone within a 10 mile radius, then guess what? You’re a suspect and there’s nothing you can or should be able to do about it. Your problem is with the investigation methods itself, not any sort of rights. You should be arguing instead that the net is cast too wide and its ineffective. But no one should be arguing that the police have no right to ask for voluntary cooperation and no one should be claiming that being on a suspects list violates their rights And as we’ve rehashed already, this definition of “suspect” is meaningless, both to the law and to me. Also, as it happens, I _do_ argue that casting the net that wide is stupid and pointless. Searching my house won’t help them find a missing person, and it might just prove detrimental to me. At the very least, it is an inconvenience which I will not willingly bear when the only benefit is to allow the police to sustain the illusion that they are doing something useful. I have never once argued that the police asking for consent to enter my home violates any of my rights. Unless I’m mistaken about what you and others are trying to say, that is a total non-issue in this thread. It seems to me rather that the question has been about whether or not it’s “good” or “decent” to waive your rights in this circumstance, with the _ostensible_ goal of aiding the investigation. Personally, I don’t see where decency enters into it. If I thought for a moment that a small (or even substantial) inconvenience to me would make it possible to find a missing person, I would agree in a heartbeat. I would willingly lend assistance to any productive effort to solve a crime in my community. But I feel no compulsion to assist with useless acts of investigative theater, and much, much less so when they begin with the premise “we think you might be the scumbag what done it.” ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/245 "2009-11-12T23:21:45Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > … If you are breaking a law already, then you deserve to be caught and punished. … You are conflating the law and morality, which is an extremely dangerous thing to do. When I was a kid, it was illegal for people of color to drink from certain drinking fountains, and people were caught and punished for it. However, that does not mean that they “deserved to be caught and punished.” It just means that that particular law was an immoral piece of shit. And that POS law was supported by the claims of idiots who said “Well, for them nigras to drink from that there fountain is agin’ the law, they were breakin’ the law already, they deserved to be punished.” Another version of this were the Prohibition laws against drinking alcohol. My mom was an alcoholic. She grew up during Prohibition. She drank during Prohibition. She drank after Prohibition. At all times, she needed help, counseling, rehab, tough love, understanding, and the like. But at no time did she “deserve to be caught and punished”. How would that have helped her addiction? Come down off of your high moral horse, “breaks the law” does not equal “deserves punishment”. ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/246 "2009-11-12T23:22:40Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’m sure that had you been the murderer hiding pieces of her in your freezer, you’d say the same. Pardon me for thinking the police shouldn’t rely on killers turning themselves in. The point is, that if the police need the public’s help, they should ask for their help and not cast a ridiculously wide net that casts suspicions on all the “good decent people” you keep talking about. If you treat all the “good decent people” as suspects, you are not going to find them to be as forthcoming or helpful because you’re creating an environment that presumes their guilt. You are saying that there is no violation of my rights if I _volunteer_ to let the police search my house. And you say that all good decent people should let the police search their houses. Do you not see how that implies a lack of choice right there? It’s like when people say: “If you have nothing to hide, then you won’t object to the search.” It paints an inaccurate portrait of me: if I’m uncomfortable with having my private life open to unmerited police scrutiny, then I must be guilty of some crime. If I don’t want to look guilty, I _must_ let the police in. If I feel like I don’t actually have a choice in the matter, if I am letting them in only under duress, then I would say that yes, my rights are to a degree being violated. I would be “volunteering” only because I feel I _have to_. I am not comfortable with the implications of an investigation being conducted in that manner. ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/247 "2009-11-12T23:32:51Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I think plain view still applies. Under the warrant, they are legally entitled to search anywhere X might reasonably be concealed. If they find Y, which is obviously illegal, in a place X reasonably may have been, I think they can seize it/arrest you for it. > > Now if they were searching for stolen cars, and found a small bag of drugs in your nightstand, that would not fall under plain view, because a car could not be in your nightstand. Ah, that makes ore sense. Okay, but in a case like this when they are looking for a missing woman, a neighbor said they searched his refrigerator and cupboards. Isn’t that an awfully broadly executed search? I mean, it is logical. In addition to checking the extra bedroom for signs of a guest, they may be looking in cupboards for an extra toothbrush, the hamper for her favorite sweater etc. But in such a broad search what if if they found diamonds hidden in someone’s freezer? That may just happen to be where they hide their own family jewelery, but they’d have to go and dig up proof of ownership. That could take time. Should the diamonds be seized in the meantime? It just sounds like it would really bog down the system because they’d be following thousands of false trails. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/248 "2009-11-12T23:57:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Neither Jewell nor Nifong have any application to this topic. Those involved arrests and accusations. This does not. Jewell was arrested because they wanted to make the Olympic visitors feel safe. They don’t mind accusing or arresting the wrong guy. There are plenty of innocent people in jail who just cleaned up some detectives desk work. Prosecutors, once committed, rarely admit they were wrong. Even the people released by DNA don’t get the prosecutor to admit they were wrong. The cops don’t admit it either. No thanks, I want nothing to do with them. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/249 "2009-11-13T00:15:31Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > Ah, that makes ore sense. > > Okay, but in a case like this when they are looking for a missing woman, a neighbor said they searched his refrigerator and cupboards. Isn’t that an awfully broadly executed search? That’s why most lawyers advise people not to consent to searches. If you consent, they can look anywhere they like, unless or until you attempt to withdraw consent, which may or may not work. Here, I think they are looking for the missing woman and/or unspecified other evidence. Without knowing exactly what they’re looking for, it’s hard to define what a reasonable scope of the search might be. Blood/DNA evidence could be anywhere. Weapons, clothing, restraint devices, tools, cameras, pictures, computers, storage media, body parts in the freezer, ashes in the fireplace, garbage, drains, fresh digging in the yard…any of that and more could possibly be relevant evidence. With a warrant, they have to tell a judge what they expect to find, and why they expect to find it at the location to be searched, so the searchee has some degree of protection from random fishing expeditions. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/250 "2009-11-13T00:17:47Z")
> [@intention](#): > > You are conflating the law and morality, which is an extremely dangerous thing to do. > > When I was a kid, it was illegal for people of color to drink from certain drinking fountains, and people were caught and punished for it. > > However, that does not mean that they “deserved to be caught and punished.” It just means that that particular law was an immoral piece of shit. And that POS law was supported by the claims of idiots who said “Well, for them nigras to drink from that there fountain is agin’ the law, they were breakin’ the law already, they deserved to be punished.” > > Another version of this were the Prohibition laws against drinking alcohol. My mom was an alcoholic. She grew up during Prohibition. She drank during Prohibition. She drank after Prohibition. At all times, she needed help, counseling, rehab, tough love, understanding, and the like. > > But at no time did she “deserve to be caught and punished”. How would that have helped her addiction? Come down off of your high moral horse, “breaks the law” does not equal “deserves punishment”. Way fucking wrong. Laws exist. You obey the laws, even if they are a POS law like the various Jim Crow Laws, or prohibition. You obey them while trying to get them overturned. You are NOT allowed to cherrypick the laws you follow, it does not work that way. Feel free to bitch about the laws all you want, but you will follow them or you will do whatever punishment the courts assign after trial, assuming you got caught and went to trial. So, yes that nigra needed to get punished, as did your mom, if and when they got caught. I do not happen to believe in jim crow laws or prohibition, but if those are the laws, then I follow the laws. And nowhere in the laws or constitution does it say I have to NOT request a warrant. It happens to be my constitutional right, and I will stand on my rights. Prove there is a valid reason to search my house, show up with a warrant, and I will hide in the car while someone searches my house. I will also make them wait until I have someone to be in there as an observer [preferably a lawyer, but my neighbor would do in a pinch. Random destruction is NOT allowed in the execution of a warrant, but sometimes cops get frisky and hold grudges and do things htey are not supposed to.] ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/251 "2009-11-13T00:21:12Z")
**Swallowed My Cellphone** , if I recall correctly, you’re in Canada, right? If so, I will check some Canadian legal resources that will address your questions about warrants, exigent circumstances, the plain view doctrine, and your counterfeiting machine example. I believe the principles are pretty much the same as they are for our American friends, but I’m hesitant to say for sure without checking a few resources first. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/252 "2009-11-13T00:35:04Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > **Swallowed My Cellphone** , if I recall correctly, you’re in Canada, right? > > If so, I will check some Canadian legal resources that will address your questions about warrants, exigent circumstances, the plain view doctrine, and your counterfeiting machine example. I believe the principles are pretty much the same as they are for our American friends, but I’m hesitant to say for sure without checking a few resources first. Good point. My comments are based only on my understanding of general concepts in U.S. law. Might be pretty cool if we have lawyers from other countries weigh in, too… ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/253 "2009-11-13T00:53:23Z")
In Russia, search polices YOU! ---
**Author:** ![Eats\_Crayons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Eats\_Crayons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eats_Crayons)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/254 "2009-11-13T01:07:55Z")
Wow! I do believe this may be my very first post in GD! I live in Toronto, and after following both the news and this thread (back when it was in IMHO) I decided to wade into the fray. I have to admit, the current course of the investigation into this missing teenager does not sit well with me. Mainly, because I feel too many people will acquiesce to a police search not truly voluntarily, but rather because they fear that refusal will (falsely) incriminate them and draw unwarranted suspicion. No matter how often you reassure people that they may refuse without fear of reprisal, I believe that they will feel that their freedom to choose is compromised. In this way, although the letter of the law is being followed, their Charter rights may be compromised due to this unintentional police pressure. I think this course will use too many resources for minimal actual benefit (I may be proven wrong) and will cause too much stress to too many innocent people. Also, I’m a bit curious as to who this woman is. My mother worked for Children’s Aid both in Canada and in the United States for well over 30 years. Her response to the investigation: “WTF?” For a missing teen over the age of 16, this kind of response is completely and utterly unheard of, particularly with nothing to suggest violence or abduction. From what she has seen in the press, there is nothing particularly unusual about this teenager’s disappearance (at least nothing notably different than the other thousands of cases that her agency would take part in every year.) She is speculating that there must be unusual elements to the case that are not being publicly disclosed. Which of course means I’m now entertaining ideas along the lines of Russian Mafia! Witness relocation program! Daughter of a head of state in hiding! Bearer of the one ring! Edit: For the record, I would decline to allow the police to perform a search as well. I don’t feel that geography alone is enough to justify having the police rummage through my medicine cabinet or take inventory of my sex toys. If there are reasonable grounds, or a belief that someone may have broken in and left clues, that is a different story. No reasonable grounds, then no, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/255 "2009-11-13T01:13:46Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Way fucking wrong. Laws exist. You obey the laws, even if they are a POS law like the various Jim Crow Laws, or prohibition. You obey them while trying to get them overturned. > > You are NOT allowed to cherrypick the laws you follow, it does not work that way. Feel free to bitch about the laws all you want, but you will follow them or you will do whatever punishment the courts assign after trial, assuming you got caught and went to trial. > > So, yes that nigra needed to get punished, as did your mom, if and when they got caught. I do not happen to believe in jim crow laws or prohibition, but if those are the laws, then I follow the laws. … Again, you are conflating law with morality. Lots of people get punished by the law who don’t deserve it … which clearly means that they are different things. As you point out, you are not allowed to cherrypick the laws you follow. As you point out, if you are caught, you will get punished. But this does not mean that you deserve to get punished. Nobody deserves to be punished for drinking from a fountain marked “Whites Only”. Yes, if they are arrested for it, they will get punished. And yes, you can’t bitch about it, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. But on my planet, that still doesn’t mean that drinking from a “Whites Only” fountain is an action that deserves punishment, no matter what the law says. By your logic, since it was illegal to be Jewish in Germany during WWII, they deserved to be thrown in concentration camps … sure you want to go with that one? In Saudi Arabia, it’s punishable by death to convert from Islam to Buddhism and speak out against Islam (apostasy). Do people who have committed that heinous crime deserve to be put to death? Or are they simply being put to death for breaking an immoral, unjust law? Me, I still say “broke the law” does not equal “deserves to be punished”. Doesn’t mean you can cherrypick the laws. Doesn’t mean you won’t get punished if you break them. But it also doesn’t mean you deserve to be punished. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/256 "2009-11-13T02:47:00Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Way fucking wrong. Laws exist. You obey the laws, even if they are a POS law like the various Jim Crow Laws, or prohibition. You obey them while trying to get them overturned. One of these days we’ll catch that lawbreaking bitch Harriet Tubman and hang her like she deserves! Odesio ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/257 "2009-11-13T03:26:26Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > You and some others here are afraid of getting in trouble for a crime you did commit, rather than one you didn’t (I’ll assume nobody here kidnapped or murdered that girl). People are complaining about accidently having a bong on a table, or evidence of other things that lead to a crime. You know what? Those are CRIMES. I have absolutely no sympathy for you if you are lawyering up just because you don’t want the police to find your stash of child porn or bricks of crack in the closet. Whether or not you committed murder, you guys still commited other crimes and the police should absolutely have the right to arrest you if they stumble upon these other illicit activities.. Sure, those are crimes. How about the record collection stored in milk crates? Unlicensed or too many pets? There is no doubt that in your residence _right now_, you have violated some crime or code infraction. Most likely something minor, something you don;t know is a crime or don’t think about as really illegal. \*Everyone has. \* Now, will the Police in this case stop for those? Who knows? ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/258 "2009-11-13T03:35:50Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Way fucking wrong. Laws exist. You obey the laws, even if they are a POS law like the various Jim Crow Laws, or prohibition. You obey them while trying to get them overturned. > > You are NOT allowed to cherrypick the laws you follow, it does not work that way. Feel free to bitch about the laws all you want, but you will follow them or you will do whatever punishment the courts assign after trial, assuming you got caught and went to trial. > > So, yes that nigra needed to get punished, as did your mom, if and when they got caught. I do not happen to believe in jim crow laws or prohibition, but if those are the laws, then I follow the laws. Not a big fan of Thoreau, are you? ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/259 "2009-11-13T03:36:36Z")
Okay, as promised, some Canadian legal commentary that should answer \*\*Swallowed My Cellphone’s \*\*earlier questions as well as be applicable to the OP’s concerns about events in Toronto. Note that these come from notes, materials, and other resources I have on file. Usual disclaimers apply; I am not your lawyer, you are not my client, this is information only and not legal advice. One further note for our American friends: in Canada, the Criminal Code (CC) is federal legislation, applying to and in all provinces of Canada. We don’t have separate provincial criminal law, as you have in each state. Thus, any references to the “CC” in this post apply across Canada in all cases. In general terms, a warrant allows a police officer to search in any building, receptacle, or place where there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe there is something or someone relating to an offense. When seeking a warrant, police must be able to specifically identify what it is they are looking for: _Re Gillis and The Queen_, (1982) 1 C.C.C. (3d) 545 (Q.S.C.). This is codified in CC s. 487, requiring “particularity and specificity” in a warrant–so a police officer seeking a warrant should be able to provide specifics, such as: – A list of items to be found. – A location where they are likely to be. – Who can seize the items (specifically: “Officer Smith,” not “the police”) – What can be seized – When it can be seized (see also CC s. 488). Notice that in order to get a warrant, police must have _reasonable and probable grounds_ to believe that what they are _specifically_ looking for will be found in the location for which they are requesting a warrant. What “reasonable and probable grounds” (R&PG) are remains vague, and there is much caselaw on how to define this term; but the best definition (IMHO) states that R&PG requires a standard of reasonable probability, which entails something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but something more than mere possibility or suspicion. (Paraphrased from _Baron v. Canada_ (1993), 78 C.C.C. (3d) 510 at 532-33 (S.C.C.)). The Plain View doctrine is codified at CC s. 489(1): > [@](#): > > 1. (1) Every person who executes a warrant may seize, in addition to the things mentioned in the warrant, any thing that the person believes on reasonable grounds > > (a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; > (b) has been used in the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; or > (c) will afford evidence in respect of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament. So it seems that inviting a police officer in to look for a missing girl may put the homeowner at risk of having such things as drugs and counterfeit money machines seized, if such things are found during the search for the missing girl. Again, reasonableness is required–if the police have a warrant to search your garage for a stolen Ferrari, they would not reasonably be looking under your cellar stairs where they could find your counterfeiting machine. But if they reasonably believed the missing girl was in your cellar, and possibly under your cellar stairs, then say goodbye to your counterfeiting machine. Also, the obviously-used bong on your living room coffee table that they notice as they head for the cellar, and the laptop computer displaying child porn that you left on the couch when you got up to answer the door. In short, if illegal items are in plain view, then even though police are looking for something else, the items can be seized. Exigent circumstances are covered at CC s. 489(2): > [@](#): > > 1. (2) Every peace officer, and every public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, who is lawfully present in a place pursuant to a warrant or otherwise in the execution of duties may, without a warrant, seize any thing that the officer believes on reasonable grounds > > (a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; > (b) has been used in the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; or > (c) will afford evidence in respect of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament. Generally, “exigent circumstances” in Canada mean that if getting a warrant is impractical for some reason, or there is a concern that evidence will be lost, destroyed, or (in the case of drugs, for example) flushed while the police obtain a warrant, then a warrantless search is okay. Care must be taken, however, since the principles of R&PG hold, even in exigent circumstances. Note, however, that it is possible in Canada for police to obtain what is known as a “telewarrant.” This is allowed by CC s. 487.1: > [@](#): > > 487.1 (1) Where a peace officer believes that an indictable offence has been committed and that it would be impracticable to appear personally before a justice to make application for a warrant in accordance with section 256 or 487, the peace officer may submit an information on oath by telephone or other means of telecommunication to a justice designated for the purpose by the chief judge of the provincial court having jurisdiction in the matter. > > \ … so police cannot claim “exigent circumstances” if they had the time to make a phone call. It is my understanding that a judge is standing by 24/7 for telewarrants, so the police have even fewer reasons to violate somebody’s s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure by claiming “exigent circumstances” at odd hours of the night simply because a judge was unavailable. I’ll add that these CC provisions are often further defined by caselaw, but honestly, I’m a little too tired after researching this post to chase down the leading cases on them right now. I hope that citations and quotations to the CC itself are adequate for the purposes of this discussion. **Swallowed My Cellphone** , I hope I’ve answered your questions. Going to take a break now… ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/260 "2009-11-13T04:02:19Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > I’m a good decent guy. I’ve checked, there is no missing person hiding in my closet. As a good, decent guy, I can assure you that if I found a missing person in my closet, I would call the police right away yelling: “I found her!” Well, you better hope she is alive, because the police have just found the body and the murderer! \ “Sir, we’d like to search your home for the missing girl” “Yeah, sure, I want to help with the investigation” … “Sir, this yellow shirt hidden in the back of your closet. Where did you get it?” “Huh? It probably belonged to my old girlfriend. I haven’t seen her in years.” “Then why is it still in your closet” “I dunno. I guess I never threw it out.” “The missing girl was wearing a yellow shirt. Something isn’t right. Sir, it appears you are hiding something. You’re coming down to the precinct to answer some questions”. And off you walk to the police car with all the neighbors looking on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107.md?page=14)