Can Premises Be Searched After the Service of an Arrest Warrant

[cdwjava]

sounds like if properly (or improperly depending on how you look at it) constructed, it could be ruled valid although it would seem that it would be difficult to do so.

Anything COULD happen, but why take the chance?

If the officer is seen as knowingly and intentionally violating the 4th Amendment he or she can find themself liable for damages personally. It's not worth the risk.

[jk]

cdwjava;624395]Anything COULD happen, but why take the chance?

because, while there are some very intelligent cops out there with great moral and ethical standards out there, there are some dumb idiots that don't care about the law nearly as much as they should.

If the officer is seen as knowingly and intentionally violating the 4th Amendment he or she can find themself liable for damages personally. It's not worth the risk.

see above

[cdwjava]

because, while there are some very intelligent cops out there with great moral and ethical standards out there, there are some dumb idiots that don't care about the law nearly as much as they should.

There is no means to account for idiots and the insane. There is no rational reason to intentionally violate the 4th Amendment on a pure fishing expedition.

[aardvarc]

Anything terribly obvious should have already been found in a cursory officer safety sweep to account for all persons in the place anyway. Nothing like everyone standing around in the living room cuffing a suspect when his crazy ex bursts out of a bedroom firing randomly into the ceiling cause no one checked. Yeah. Hate those days.

[cmre3456]

Of course, if one does not make a habit of breaking the law, the police won't come knocking and there will be no reason to take all of these extraordinary steps to avoid a search.

I would like to take a small exception to this, and BTW I like your sig line.

Many here know that I'm a gun hobbyist to the extent of having an 07 SOT FFL and select fire weapons. I also posted that a crazy relative filed for a restraining order against me falsely alleging threats with guns. Had I lost, I would have been banned from owning any firearm for 15 years and would have had a lot of other grief.

Fortunately the case was dismissed with prejudice at the first pre-trial hearing on a motion, but in the interim I was scared to death. It also cost me about $11k in attorney's fees. The accuser was a police officer and it cost him his job because we proved that he misrepresented evidence to the court and made his filing with malice.

So while I agree with the statement in principle, anyone can get caught up in the system and need to know his rights on the spot (the serving officers wanted to search my home and seize my guns without a warrant and I didn't let them, and I wasn't under arrest.)

While thats all cleared up and behind me, bad things can happen to the best of people.

Cheers.

[PTPD22]

So while I agree with the statement in principle, anyone can get caught up in the system and need to know his rights on the spot (the serving officers wanted to search my home and seize my guns without a warrant and I didn't let them, and I wasn't under arrest.)

While thats all cleared up and behind me, bad things can happen to the best of people.

Cheers.

What you say is true...people should know their rights before the need arises. However, I don't think that is really what Carl was referring to. He was responding to the poster that was advising people should kinda "cop proof" their homes and possessions with fancy, automatically-locking combination locks and such. Measures like that are really only helpful if you expect the cops to come knocking because you are willfully engaged in illegal activities.

For law abiding folks, simply knowing that you have the right to refuse consent, the right to not make any statements or answer questions, etc., is going to be sufficient to protect you from any overzealous authorities who might try to overstep their legal limitations. (We all know it DOES happen...although I argue not with the frequency or consistency that some here claim) Let's face it...the cops are going to do what they are going to do. If a person thinks they have gone beyond their legal authority, the place to address it is in court. Trying to physically prevent them from doing something like (in the arrestee's opinion) conducting an illegal search is only likely to result in more charges and the real possibility of a trip to the emergency room.

[cdwjava]

I would like to take a small exception to this, and BTW I like your sig line.

Thanks. Good movie and a GREAT song!

So while I agree with the statement in principle, anyone can get caught up in the system and need to know his rights on the spot (the serving officers wanted to search my home and seize my guns without a warrant and I didn't let them, and I wasn't under arrest.)

That's great. And, they didn't. Having all the locks in the world made no difference for you because the police chose to adhere to the law.

But, had you failed to comply with the court order and did not provide proof that your weapons had been disposed of in some lawful manner, that could be used as grounds for a search warrant. I don't know what state you are in, but out here we match records of restraining orders with records of gun ownership to identify those people who have not yet complied with court orders and can use the resulting information as probable cause to seek a search warrant. In such a case, all the locks in the world won't prevent the search.

[Insons Insontis]

Of course, if one does not make a habit of breaking the law, the police won't come knocking and there will be no reason to take all of these extraordinary steps to avoid a search.

*cough* http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1
*ahem* http://www.naturalnews.com/032240_po...Americans.html
*hochhh* http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-family-says-police-terrorized-122210,0,3385060.story
*cheew* http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...icers_raid.php

Excuse me. I must be allergic to something.

[cdwjava]

*cough* http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1
*ahem* http://www.naturalnews.com/032240_po...Americans.html
*hochhh* http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-family-says-police-terrorized-122210,0,3385060.story
*cheew* http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...icers_raid.php

Excuse me. I must be allergic to something.

Gee, I can play the same game and point to articles of the bizarre and unusual, too.

Of course, none of these seem to be cases where officers decided, "What the heck, let me risk prison and the loss of everything I own just to jack with the guy!"

Oh, and superlocking the doors would have done little or nothing in these instances which appear to be mistakes rather than intentional acts.

The bottom line is that the police do not regularly go around forcing their way into people's homes without cause. If you are that paranoid, go ahead and double lock, and super secure your house when you step outside ... hopefully you won't lock yourself out one day. If the police have probable cause and an exigency to enter, they will do so even if you lock it. All you will do is deter the officer who lacked cause and probably wouldn't have entered anyway. The officer WITH cause and an exigency will simply be annoyed that he will have to break the door, adn the officer with probable cause and no exigency will seek a warrant.

I don't like to live paranoid ... but, to each his own.

[Insons Insontis]

What you say is true...people should know their rights before the need arises. However, I don't think that is really what Carl was referring to. He was responding to the poster that was advising people should kinda "cop proof" their homes and possessions with fancy, automatically-locking combination locks and such. Measures like that are really only helpful if you expect the cops to come knocking because you are willfully engaged in illegal activities.

For law abiding folks, simply knowing that you have the right to refuse consent, the right to not make any statements or answer questions, etc., is going to be sufficient to protect you from any overzealous authorities who might try to overstep their legal limitations. (We all know it DOES happen...although I argue not with the frequency or consistency that some here claim) Let's face it...the cops are going to do what they are going to do. If a person thinks they have gone beyond their legal authority, the place to address it is in court. Trying to physically prevent them from doing something like (in the arrestee's opinion) conducting an illegal search is only likely to result in more charges and the real possibility of a trip to the emergency room.

Not really, as it is the locking door that would make the officer have to break it down or call a locksmith to open the door. Luckily what happened with the FFL the officer decided not to try and enter and seize the weapons. Had he decided to enter, the lock would have prevented him from being able to lie again, as he had already done and was fired over, as there would be evidence of forced entry, etc. I am assuming the FLL dealer did not expect the cops to be knocking on his door, but things like this happen all the time. If the police are "overzealous" and trying to "overstep their legal limitations" than it would be advisable to have something to make that job more difficult.

Let's face it...the cops are going to do what they are going to do. If a person thinks they have gone beyond their legal authority, the place to address it is in court. Trying to physically prevent them from doing something like (in the arrestee's opinion) conducting an illegal search is only likely to result in more charges and the real possibility of a trip to the emergency room.

Probably true in most circumstances, but I think this is a poor state of affairs in our country when we can blandly state, "the cops are going to do what they are going to do." Citizens have the right to defend themselves against unlawful police action just as any other person they were defending themselves against. The common law has held since before the 19th century the citizens can resist unlawful arrest, and there have been many police officers killed as a result. Many states even have statutes that speak to this right as well.

If you can handle the illegal actions in court, that is great and I agree the best action to take, but many people never have that opportunity as they are beaten or killed on the spot. Sometimes it is necessary to hold court on the street. I don't think we should ever accept the idea that "cops are going to do what they are going to do." This just happens to be the opinion of our founding fathers, the common law, and my humble opinion as well.