so i get this new job 2 days ago with this company thats been operating for about six years in the city. Arrive in to work today to be greeted by 5 big guys all w/ guns…apparently the place is under investigation for fraud. I won’t go into too many details of what was going down for now, but one particular point a cop raised is something i’m curious about. I had a knapsack on me, as well and random stuff in my pockets, I specifically told the cop I didn’t want to be searched, and not to look in my bag, but he proceeded to do both things.
He later rationalized this by explaining that because I walked into a place that they had a search warrant for, they could legally search anyone and anything that happens to go inside.
This all went down in toronto canada btw, was what happened to me legal? Eventually someone who knows local law will stop in, but curious what american laws are too? cheers
That seems rather generous to enforcement. I mean, if it worked that way, I could set up a search in a public throughfare w/o signs and search everybody. What if you were gonna go in, and then changed your mind when you saw the law? Can they grab you for intending to go in?
No matter what, I’m not seeing good resume materiel here.
In the U.S., to get a search warrant, you must present probable cause that the fruits or evidence of a crime are to be found where you wish to search, and you must describe, with particularity, the places to be searched.
It’s unclear to me what probable cause you might present for your “public thoroughfare” example.
If the search warrant is related to some kind of business fraud, it probably entitles them to search desks, file cabinets, briefcases, computers, floppy disks, hard drives, and so forth on the compnay premises. The search warrant’s basic purpose would certainly be frustrated if a company officer wishing to hide evidence of fraud could stuff a briefcase or backpack with incriminating evidence and refuse to be searched, and then saunter away while police officers looked on helplessly.
For this reason, the warrant will also specify that people on the premises to be searched may be searched. While this doesn’t typically permit a body cavity search, the police are likely entitled to search the backpack of a company worker.
But Bricker the OP’s example involved a worker who was not on the premesis at the time the warrant was served. Under US law would the warrant authorize the search of that person? If so, how soon after the warrant is served would such a person have to arrive on the scene?
Lose what rights? If a judge has been convinced that it would be “reasonable” to search anyone entering a certain area at a certain time, not a single right has been violated.
Search warrants are a “warranty” that the government is exercising due diligence to not violate the right of immunity against unreasonable search. That is, they “warrant” that the search has been deemed “reasonable”.
Thus, since it is a legally “reasonable” search, no rights are violated.
so they could make a search warrant for say, any random public park where the cops think ppl tend to smoke pot & then search anyone who happens to walk into that park?
That happened to a buddy and me one night years ago when we entered a topless bar shortly after it was raided. We tried to leave but were detained because we “walked into a crime scene”.
We had to wait for a short while and show our IDs. I don’t remember if we were searched, but they let us go after checking us for warrants.
That bar never did reopen. <sigh>
Another time previous to the bar incident, I entered a friends house seconds before it was raided by rifle wielding cops looking for drugs. That time I was searched.
The cops found nothing on anyone or anywhere.
Certainly since the police were already on the scene, the warrant would authorize the search of a person who entered the scene, as long as the police remained there.
It’s doubtful. A warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. A public park in which no person has a possessary interest or an expectation of privacy does not require a warrant; the cops may simply search under benches, bushes, and water fountains. Certainly if they saw people smoking pot, they would have probable cause to search those people. But unlike a home or a place of business, which requires a warrant in the first place, the park is open to all. There’s no particular inference to be drawn that unnamed persons entering the park are a part of any illegal activity, and no basis to search.
By the way, if a warrant names only particular persons and a place to be searched, the police may not search all others on the premises. The warrant must specify “…and all persons on the premises…” which means that a judge must have been convinced of the probability that all persons on those premises were associated with the illegal activity being sought.
Bricker, this is outside of my sphere of practice to be sure, but there must be some limits, no? I mean, this warrant was being executed in a place of business which was ostensibly in a public building. Those in the office would’ve certainly included employees, but could’ve easily included clients/customers, salespeople, service people (copier repair, coffee service, etc.) delivery people and so on. While the warrant may have technically allowed for the search of the person and possessions of each of these people simply because they are on or happen upon the premises, if they are outside, it seems that there should be some way for them to know that a duly authorized police action is occurring inside and if they enter they will subject to the conditions of the warrant as well.
Otherwise, couldn’t the cops execute a warrant, say, at a suspected drug dealer’s house, then hang out for ten or twelve hours without any indications of their presence, then searching everyone who happens to walk in the unlocked door or walks up onto the porch, which I’d imagine is within the scope of the “premises” for the purposes of most warrants?
The problem with the police setting up shop is that the evidence they find from searching people after hanging out for 10-12 hours is going to get tossed out, because it clearly didn’t take them 10-12 hours to actually execute a search of the premises. If the warrant was that broad, then all of the evidence under it would risk being tossed out because it would be rather hard to come up with probable cause for the warrant.
OTOH, there’s generally nothing that prevents the police from arresting a drug dealer, then running a sting from his house. Once they’ve got someone buying drugs from a police officer, they can just search them as part of booking them. This is, AFAIK, the far more common way to search a large group of people.
It depends. If the place of business is as you describe, with a large percentage of non-employees entering and leaving, then it’s unlikely that a judge would have granted the “…and all persons present…” portion of the warrant.
In Ybarra v. Illinois, the Supreme Court dealt with a case of a bar patron present when the police executed a search warrant that named the bar and the bartender as possessing controlled substances. Police searched the bar partons as well, found heroin on one, and arrested him. The Supremes pointed out that the police had no probable cause to believe anyone except the bartender was in possession of contraband, and their warrant and affadavit did not name anyone other than the bartender.
So the key element is what the warrant specifies. In a one-room apartment drug packing operation, for example, police may easily secure a warrant for everyone on the premises, since the drug dealers would have little motive to admit anyone who was not part of the operation, and an innocent person could not fail to see the activity going on.
The OP’s case took place in Canada, so I have no idea what the rules are there. But in the US., if I heard a story like that, I’d assume that the warrant authorized the cop to make the detention and search, because the cop would risk losing anything he found at a suppression hearing if it didn’t.
Riboflavin is right. There is no bright-line test for reasonable time to search, and I suppose some searches could take ten hours. But your use of “hang out” indicates that the police are doing nothing substantive except using the warrant to snare visitors; that practice would likely be disallowed.
By the way, it is permissible to detain, without arrest, residents of a search warrant area while the search is being conducted, to prevent flight, destruction of evidence, and for the safety of officers. Michigan v. Summers.
