Illegal Search and Seizure. What to Do, and Where to Find a Good Lawyer

[cdwjava]

Yes I know this. I look bad. But I did what I did to learn and no other reason, if it was an indivduals items I would have not taken them.

So ... because the items belonged to all of us taxpayers, and have to be replaced at taxpayer expense, it is not the same thing???? Sorry, but I fail to see the logic in that.

It shouldn't matter at all WHO the owner was or is, theft is wrong, it is a crime of moral turpitude, and we ALL pay for thefts either as individuals or through higher costs at retailers and wholesalers, or through higher taxes or decreased services.

But even though I may look bad. The Police should suffer the consequences for not following the law.

That consequence (assuming they had no legal reason to be on the property) generally is a suppression of the evidence. While they may have done something wrong, or even actionable, it does not automatically mean that a civil suit is worth anyone's time or money. This is why you need to consult an attorney. If they ask for a few grand up front, you know that it may not be worth the effort.

Now how might I find an attorney that would be willing to work with a contingency fee?

Start with the phone book. But, attorneys do not work on contingency unless the payout is likely, and is sufficient to make it worth their time and effort. If the case will be long and/or difficult, and the potential award is either iffy or small, then you will not get a contingency agreement.

[tylerdustin2008]

That consequence (assuming they had no legal reason to be on the property) generally is a suppression of the evidence. While they may have done something wrong, or even actionable, it does not automatically mean that a civil suit is worth anyone's time or money. This is why you need to consult an attorney. If they ask for a few grand up front, you know that it may not be worth the effort.

Virginia state code... The law is the law.

§ 19.2-59. Search without warrant prohibited; when search without warrant lawful.

No officer of the law or any other person shall search any place, thing or person, except by virtue of and under a warrant issued by a proper officer. Any officer or other person searching any place, thing or person otherwise than by virtue of and under a search warrant, shall be guilty of malfeasance in office. Any officer or person violating the provisions of this section shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby in both compensatory and punitive damages. Any officer found guilty of a second offense under this section shall, upon conviction thereof, immediately forfeit his office, and such finding shall be deemed to create a vacancy in such office to be filled according to law.

Provided, however, that any officer empowered to enforce the game laws or marine fisheries laws as set forth in Title 28.2 may without a search warrant enter for the purpose of enforcing such laws, any freight yard or room, passenger depot, baggage room or warehouse, storage room or warehouse, train, baggage car, passenger car, express car, Pullman car or freight car of any common carrier, or any boat, automobile or other vehicle; but nothing in this proviso contained shall be construed to permit a search of any occupied berth or compartment on any passenger car or boat or any baggage, bag, trunk, box or other closed container without a search warrant.
.

Thanks for the help!

[cdwjava]

Virginia state code... The law is the law.

But, until you read the reports or hear testimony, you do not know whether they had a LAWFUL reason to be there.

As has been stated repeatedly, you can engage an attorney to review the matter and see if one will take the matter on contingency. If the potential award, or likelihood of an award, is not worth an attorneys time, then you will have to pay his costs up front.

If you believe the evidence will show that the officer(s) INTENTIONALLY and knowingly broke the law, you can bring the issue up to the local prosecutor or the state Attorney General. But, you'd better hope that the officers did not have some other legal exception to be there such as consent or an exigency that they can articulate before you start making such accusations. Hence the reason to consult an attorney ... and, as I mentioned before, you had best hope that a judge suppresses the evidence due to an unlawful search.

Understand that a warrant is never required when there exists articulable exigent circumstances or consent. If you have a copy of the police report, it should indicate why they entered onto the property. THAT will be the key. And if your current attorney does not believe the entry to be unlawful then it may not be.

[jk]

so, prove he was in violation of the law. So far you have merely made claim of the violation and have not attempted to access anything that would support or refute the claim. Until you do that, all you have is somebody whining about their belief the search was unlawful. As I said before, if the search was unlawful, you should have no trouble getting the charges dismissed.

I suspect you will be unpleasantly surprised when it is discovered the search was completely legal.

[tylerdustin2008]

But, until you read the reports or hear testimony, you do not know whether they had a LAWFUL reason to be there.

As has been stated repeatedly, you can engage an attorney to review the matter and see if one will take the matter on contingency. If the potential award, or likelihood of an award, is not worth an attorneys time, then you will have to pay his costs up front.

If you believe the evidence will show that the officer(s) INTENTIONALLY and knowingly broke the law, you can bring the issue up to the local prosecutor or the state Attorney General. But, you'd better hope that the officers did not have some other legal exception to be there such as consent or an exigency that they can articulate before you start making such accusations. Hence the reason to consult an attorney ... and, as I mentioned before, you had best hope that a judge suppresses the evidence due to an unlawful search.

Understand that a warrant is never required when there exists articulable exigent circumstances or consent. If you have a copy of the police report, it should indicate why they entered onto the property. THAT will be the key. And if your current attorney does not believe the entry to be unlawful then it may not be.

The reason for such, is that said trailer was reported stolen. It says this clearly in the warrant. How they knew it was stolen is the key.

so, prove he was in violation of the law. So far you have merely made claim of the violation and have not attempted to access anything that would support or refute the claim. Until you do that, all you have is somebody whining about their belief the search was unlawful. As I said before, if the search was unlawful, you should have no trouble getting the charges dismissed.

I suspect you will be unpleasantly surprised when it is discovered the search was completely legal.

No I will not suspect this. What gives an officer the right to enter a property gain something which then gives them probable cause to get a warrant. Before they had the vin... The lies and hearsay that was coming out of their mouths was actually hysterical. Once they found something... All the lies stopped because they actually had something.

But I have had enough of the arguing. I was simply asking what should I do. Not asking what morals I broke. As morals, I am pretty sure are not in any lawbook. And morals are not what prosecute, laws do.

[cyjeff]

You are misunderstanding the difference between morality and the law.

Morality would be telling you that stealing and lying is a sin.

The law would be telling you that officers investigating the theft of a trailer will, in fact, look for that trailer when they have been given a lead as to where the trailer can be found. Now, if that search was illegal or, in fact, the trailer could be considered in plain site is up for a judge to decide.

You need to sell everything you own and get the best attorney you can, by the way. I don't know what you are charged with but the value of the tools you borrowed is going to make this a pretty hefty felony.

One last point.... you are full of crap. You say that you wouldn't have stolen from an individual but would from the state... but you didn't know who the tools belonged to until you looked at labels on them. Unless you are going to try to convince us that you took the time WHILE YOU WERE STEALING THE TRAILER to check the ownership of the tools prior to stealing it, it didn't matter to you from whom you were stealing. That just let you rationalize the hell out of it after you got home.

[tylerdustin2008]

You are misunderstanding the difference between morality and the law.

Morality would be telling you that stealing and lying is a sin.

The law would be telling you that officers investigating the theft of a trailer will, in fact, look for that trailer when they have been given a lead as to where the trailer can be found. Now, if that search was illegal or, in fact, the trailer could be considered in plain site is up for a judge to decide.

You need to sell everything you own and get the best attorney you can, by the way. I don't know what you are charged with but the value of the tools you borrowed is going to make this a pretty hefty felony.

One last point.... you are full of crap. You say that you wouldn't have stolen from an individual but would from the state... but you didn't know who the tools belonged to until you looked at labels on them. Unless you are going to try to convince us that you took the time WHILE YOU WERE STEALING THE TRAILER to check the ownership of the tools prior to stealing it, it didn't matter to you from whom you were stealing. That just let you rationalize the hell out of it after you got home.

Ok I now know why you have so many posts.

[cdwjava]

The reason for such, is that said trailer was reported stolen. It says this clearly in the warrant. How they knew it was stolen is the key.

No, the articulation and justification will be. If they were on the property lawfully, observed the VIN from where they had a right to be, then obtaining the VIN for the subsequent search warrant could be just fine and dandy.

But I have had enough of the arguing. I was simply asking what should I do. Not asking what morals I broke. As morals, I am pretty sure are not in any lawbook. And morals are not what prosecute, laws do.

But, adhering to societal mores (i.e. the laws) can help keep you out of trouble with the law. That is the reason we HAVE these laws.

[tylerdustin2008]

Ok end of topic.

[cdwjava]

I am going to just leave it at this. I obviously know more about all the little laws. You cant just state the bigs ones, and leave the important little ones out.

But, the "little ones" are being quoted by you in an isolated context. There are exceptions, and broader interpretations of the laws as well. One cannot simply point to one code, leave it in an isolated context, and assume that it applies. It does not work that way.

And, yes, there are lawful reasons to bypass "no trespassing" signs without committing a crime.

Consult that attorney.