There are times when searches can be performed without a court ordered search warrant. These are called warrantless searches and it's the most common type of search conducted by law enforcement.
The vital word in determining a warrantless search: Reasonable. It will be up to the court in many instances to determine if the warrantless search was reasonable. Really, this boils down to the court agreeing that law enforcement's judgment to search was based on logical criminal suspicion.
If you voluntarily allow police to search your home or car, this is called a consent search. This validates a search and, as a result, turns anything law enforcement finds into admissible evidence. Officers also do not have to tell people that they can decline thus granting law enforcement, without a warrant, the right to search the home.
One of the keys here is determining who has the right to consent to the search. If roommates live in a home, courts may say that the consent of a person to search the home does not apply to the personal areas of another in the same place. If there are separate bedrooms for instance, police could only search the one used the by the person who consented to the search.
Landlords and hotel managers cannot allow searches of leased areas. Company owners can consent to a search of the company, which can include work areas. But this search is limited from personal employee areas like a locker.
It will be up to prosecutors to prove consent was given in the proper manner.
Just as it sounds. If a law enforcement officer can see evidence of criminal activity prior to entering or an initial search, then the officer is within their rights to enter without a search warrant. If an officer sees a weapon from a legal vantage point, he's allowed to proceed with a search. This is applicable to homes or cars.
The officer can't alter a normal vantage point to see possible contraband. The discovery of the evidence also needs to be unintentional. So, officers can't scale a tree to see in a window. They also need to come across evidence while already in a legal position outside or inside the home.
Police are allowed to search only the person arrested and the area where that person could acquire a weapon or could hide or destroy evidence following an arrest. And this search needs to happen during or immediately after arrest.
This allows the search to be consider "reasonable," because it is related to the arrest. Officers are allowed to use these searches as self-protection or to preserve evidence in connection with an arrest.
In other instances, warrantless searches are allowed in extreme circumstances. If the police feel someone's safety is at risk or criminal activity is occurring, and obtaining a warrant would increase those things, they can enter a home or vehicle and perform a search.
If someone is perceived to be in danger or police feel criminal activity is going on, they can enter using the emergency exception.
A recent 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court has curtailed law enforcement's ability to perform a warrantless search of a vehicle.
If a person is cited for a traffic violation then detained in the back of a police car and poses no threat, police are not allowed to search the vehicle. Previously, warrantless car searches were allowed immediately following any arrest.
Warrantless searches can still happen if the passenger compartment was within reach of someone removed from the vehicle or if law enforcement thinks there is evidence in there. If a suspect had access to the vehicle during the time of the arrest, that also allows officers the right to check the vehicle.
Since warrantless searches are allowed in certain circumstances, people are almost always better off staying out of the way but making it clear they do not consent to the search. Remember, once in court the search will have to prove legal in order for evidence to be admissible at trial. Promptly contacting your attorney in any warrantless search situation is recommended.
4 th degree assault
Q/A
Q; In a 4th degree assault charge can I ask for the case to be dismissed at a readiness hearing due to No evidence or witnesses what so ever on the alleged victims side that a crime was even committed. And at this point the county prosecutors office has taken over the case and has been putting it on the back burner for 2 years now.
A; you can always ask, but I doubt you will get a dismissal. The ''he said, she said'' scenario is why they try cases. The statement from one person is evidence and that is sufficient for the prosecution to proceed. Then a jury must determine the credibility of the person making the statement and based on that will determine guilt or not.
Q: Does the person that made the statement have to be present the day of the jury trial or is their police report (only) substantial for the jury to proceed on with out the said person being there. If so, how is it possible for the jury to determine the credibility of the person making the statement? Solely off cross-examination of the defendant? isnt there some kind of statue in rights to a speedy trial? with or with out a waiver signed.
Retaliatory rent increase?
I sent a letter to my landlord regarding many repairs that had not been made for months, such as a toilet that leaked on the floor, a bathtub without any working faucets, a glass door in the same bathroom that had to be held up while you showered, etc.
I told them if the repairs were not made promptly I would use the repair and deduct remedy. Four days after I sent the letter they raised my rent $100 per month and still had not made any of the repairs. This was a month to month rental that I had been renting for 8.5 months before the rent increase. I continued to rent there and paid the increased rent for another 10 months.
How do I collect damages for the retaliatory rent increase?