Can Police Obtain Search Warrant for Empty Premises Owner's if Whereabouts Unknown

My question involves criminal law for the state of: California.

I saw the exchange about arrests warrants and it made me wonder how long it takes detectives, who suspect evidence (of murder) is in the home of a person whose whereabouts the police don't know, to get a search warrant for those premises. One's home is a special place, but murder's an unforgivable crime. So:

1 Will someone tell me, please, how long it would take to obtain a search warrant in the circumstances I have described?

2 Also, if a crime hasn't yet been committed, but the police suspect evidence of the planned crime is in a missing person's home, how long to get a search warrant for that?

3 In both cases I have in mind a suspect with no criminal record who has been seen at the scene of other crimes but never charged and whose whereabouts, as I said before, are unknown. So, one of the things the police want to look for is evidence of the suspect's current location. I understand that language in a search warrant application must be specific. Is "evidence of the property owner's current location" sufficiently so?

As ever, sorry if I'm a chump, and thanks in advance.

1. If it happens, it will take as long as it takes.

2. If it happens, it will take as long as it takes.

3. If the police are seeking the right to enter specific premises to look for a specific person, they will need to provide adequate factual support in their affidavit in support of the warrant request.

Thanks for the reply. If it happens, how long does it typically take?

There is no "typical" time frame. Each and every case is unique and the facts dictate how long it takes.

Quote:

---

Quoting John Truman

---

Thanks for the reply. If it happens, how long does it typically take?

---

that would depend on whether they can get a judge on the phone or not. A warrant can be issued in mere minutes if a judge can be reached. Warrants can be requested and granted telephonically. The paperwork would follow later.

If their is an urgency but less than exigent circumstances, a warrant can be issued quite quickly. If there is no urgency, as others have said; it takes what it takes.

Thanks for the replies to date.

When the original question about arrest warrants caught my attention, I decided I ought to know more about search warrants (a decision I'm beginning to regret), a wide subject, given the possible reasons for someone to want one. Therefore, I set out what I hoped was a case where the suspect was suspected of a serious crime, murder, of having committed it more than once, and of being about to commit it again (unless first apprehended). I should have made it clearer that the suspicion was that the suspect was a professional killer. Sorry for not doing so. A search warrant was wanted for his unoccupied premises as it was believed that there would evidence there of his present whereabouts.

I constructed a fictitious case with the aim of presenting a question that would secure a clear answer. You know what I got. I hope I may try your patience by reposing my question.

The suspicion is that a professional killer is about to kill again and that evidence of his present location is in his unoccupied home. Were I a judge, I'd grant a search warrant pronto. Is it not possible to say, from experience, if the 'typical span of time' for the securing of a warrant in such circumstances would be between one minute (the phone call solution) and three days (or three weeks, or three months)? It's hard to credit that a suspected killer would be allowed an abundance of time to kill again.

Yes, I'm an ignorant non-police, non-legal citizen, but surely there's a limit to how long it's PROBABLE the issue of a warrant would take in a case of suspected murder. Please help, somebody.

"Curiosity killed the cat, and right now I feel very feline" - John Truman, 2012.

Listen very carefully....There is NO "typical" answer to the question. None. Zero. Everything is very fact specific. If probable cause does not exist, it doesn't exist. "Suspicion" that the person is a professional killer is not probable cause. The police generally have to be able to establish more than a baseline suspicion. A judge is not going to ignore that simply because the police say the person is a killer.

How many times do you have to be told this?

I have it now. The part from 'Suspicion' to the end is new, so I got that pretty quickly. Pity it wasn't given before. I got the 'over the phone' thing from jk immediately, too. It was a straight answer and he didn't try to be smart, which suggests that he is. My thanks to jk. As for the rest, I understand that it could take 100 years to get a search warrant in California. I understand it, and I'm surprised. (As I understand it, being surprised is not against the law.)

You were given correct answers before, you just kept changing the details to see if the answer changed. It won't as there is NO such thing as a typical time frame in these situations.

As for your little swipe at me, I'm quite intelligent and gave you correct answers. If you can't handle an occasional dig, the internet is not for you. Seek your answers in a law library or Google and quit wasting the volunteers time here.

No being surprised is not against any current law. If only being thick was.

I've never asked a question that was triggered by another question on here before. I'm sorry I did this time. Clearly, I misread the rules of the game.

But consider: a defense attorney asks a police officer in court, 'How long does it usually take to get a search warrant?'
The officer says, 'It takes what it takes.'
I put it to you that that would not be considered satisfactory by the defense attorney, the judge (if it came to that - judges don't like contempt any more than I do), or the officer's superiors.

You state as a fact (when it's an opinion, of course, but one your entitlement to which I'd die to defend) that I changed the details to see if the answer changed. Well, insofar as I was forced to do so in an attempt to get a straight answer, yes. But a straight answer at the start would have precluded all that. I suggest that I was the victim of an attempt at 'smartness' (not by you), which left me with an answer that must be vaguer than the truth: even if the longest it's taken in someone's experience to get a warrant is one year or ten years, that's a finite time. It is not 'as long as it takes.'

As for backhanded swipes, I made none; to do so would have been unconscionably rude when I was asking for help in understanding something with which I'm totally unfamiliar. It was certainly not my intention to waste anyone's time (including my own).

Your 'wrapper' appears to have been somewhat counter-productive, but, as I've already said, I've never tagged onto the end of someone else's question before and I won't do it again. And I will indeed look elsewhere for a satisfactory answer, since I only got half of it here.