This item from News of the Weird, originally from the Kansas City Star
got me thinking. In cases where police have a hunch that is not worthy of a search warrant, why can’t they go search for something unrelated on an “anonymous tip”? And then – oops! Look at all this other stuff we found!
Wouldn’t it be easy to fake an anonymous tip?
Okay. I’m not thinking straight today. The situation only works because the owner is either stupid enough to let them search or makes a stupid remark like in the quoted story.
But feel free to modify the situation to a plausible one, if possible.
Anonymous to you and anonymous to the police/judge can be two different things.
So, would he have been OK if he said, “No, you can’t search my house at all,” or would that be a justifiable reason for the cops to say, “He doesn’t want us to search his house, eh? That’s clear evidence that he must be hiding something illegal! Give us a search warrant!”
So, is the moral of this story (aside from “don’t run a meth lab”):
a) you can deny the cops access to ALL of your house, but not some of it
or
b) we’re all F’d
An anonymous tip that is just a bare assertion of conclusory facts, standing alone and without more, just plain won’t rise to the level of probable cause for a search warrant. You have to give the magistrate something more to go on, some sort of showing that “corroboration through independant sources reduced the chances of a reckless or prevaricating tale”.
toadspittle thinks we’re all F’d, eh? That’s clear evidence that he must be hiding something illegal! Give us a search warrant!"
Wasn’t there a case in the last couple years where a woman planted some joints (or knew where the ex had it stashed) and the cops came and he wouldn’t let them in without a warrant, but they detained him til the warrant came so he couldn’t flush the goods? Or something?
He would have been OK if he refused the search completely. Under the 4th Amedment there’s no requirement that someone have a good reason to refuse consent to search. However, the fact that he let them search meant he wasn’t adverse to cops searching his house on principle, so when he set one specific room off-limits, by far the most likely reason for it was because that’s the only room which contained anything he wanted to hide. Refusing a search is only mildly suspicious – allowing a search with one specific limitation is very suspicious.
Anyway, I’d bet that what happened is that this comment didn’t lead immediately to the issuance of a warrant, but rather just made the cops keep an eye on the guy for a while which led to other evidence – remember that there is no requirement whatsoever that the cops need a rational suspicion of a person to begin an investigation.
–Cliffy, Esq.
We don’t have the full article - but here’s my take:
Taking the facts as they stand, I think Gary gets off. There was no consent to search (since you can limit your consent - for example in United States v. Torres - a traveller allowed the search of a handbag but not her luggage.) He could have also revoked consent after letting them in by saying “don’t go in the garage” - all this would have been fine and cannot be used against him to get probable cause for the search warrant (no matter what the police think or the Kansas City paper thinks)
So my guess is that they had a search warrant in the works - based on the probable cause from the tip that the fugitives were in there. They just waited - the warrant came through, they entered and found the meth lab legally.
I also feel there was more involved than the newspaper account mentioned. I find it hard to believe that refusing to allow a search is legally sufficient grounds to justify a warrant. If it is, than as Toadspittle summed it up, “we’re all F’d”.
But he didn’t refuse the search – he allowed the search except for one specific area, which makes that area a legitimate target for suspicion in a way that a blanket refusal would not.
–Cliffy
He should have said: “Okay, but only the garage…”
Refusing to let the police search a specific area is a great way (practically) to get the police suspicious about what you are hiding.
However, legally they cannot use your assertion of a valid right to form the basis of a search warrant.
Basically courts have said that the Constitutional right to limit a search or to withdraw consent for a search is worthless if exercising that right can serve as the basis for finding probable cause (which would make consent unnecessary)
– Peter Wiggen
Slight hijack, but but say the cops knocked on the door and asked to search his home for hiding fugitives and he had some drugs stashed in a small drawer or something like that. Would he be able to limit the cops to only searching spaces that could hide a person? I’d want to do that myself on privacy grounds even though i don’t have anything illegal hiding in any drawers at the moment. Or say he has an illegal firearm in a shoebox in the closet. If he let the cops in to look for fugitives, what right do they have to go through small boxes? Or would the cops be permitted to tear the place apart looking for residual evidence of the phantom fugitves?
If the cops have a warrant then the search is limited to places that are possible repositories for the objects specified in the warrant. Therefore if there are looking for fugitives they can look under the bed, in closets etc - anywhere a human being can be. If they have a warrant for drugs then they can look anywhere that drugs can be stashed which is basically anywhere - cookie jar, etc.
Basically a search warrant (or any search based on probable cause) is limited to looking in places where the object described might be hidden.
Back to the hijack question though — can he limit the cops search to places where humans can be hidden? Yes - basically you can refuse consent, you can place limitations (like look there but not there) - or you can even withdraw consent (e.g. when the cops come in you say - “wait - not that closet”)
— Peter Wiggen
He’s absolutely permitted to limit the scope of his consent to search, either before or after granting general permission – and that limitation cannot serve as the basis for a search warrant. A mere refusal to permit a search of an area does not create probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, or that fruits of the crime would be discovered in the area in question.
The newspaper either doesn’t tell the whole story, or the warrant was defective and will be quashed.
My guess is that the refusal caused them to get suspicious, and obtain a warrant based probable cause to search for the fugitives, and then the drugs are admissible under the plain view exception once they’re legally in the garage. But that’s only a guess. The LAW is that refusal to consent to a blanket search cannot serve, without more, as the basis for a warrant.
PeterWiggen’s info here is right on the money with regards to limiting the scope of the search to various places/sizes/etc.
Stupid mollycoddling Supreme Court! 
–Cliffy