mewgirl, you have insulted just about everybody here.

If you know so damn much, why don't you just research this yourself and show us all how great you are.

The truth is, you are wrong in many of your suppositions. Evidence from an illegal search can be used against you in some situations. You refuse to tell us anything about yours so nobody here can begin to tell you if it may be applicable.
If they SEARCHED anything that was not on your body and not taken with you into the jail, without consent or a warrant, then it is illegal.
this is not true. Even with the recent SCOTUS decision, there are still times your car can be searched without a warrant.

Quote:
First, an arrest requires only that there exists probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and the person arrested committed the offense. It does not require absolute certainty and is a relatively low hurdle to leap.

Of course not. It does require a warrant, though.
again, you are wrong. For some reason, the millions of people that are arrested without a warrant but due to the evidence the officer sees of a crime when interacting with the person are setting in jail because there is no warrant needed in such a situation are still there, even with you claiming they cannot be arrested without a warrant.

I guess every criminal defense attorney in the country just has it all wrong.

Why don;t you go out and correct them since you know everything.

Now, if PD#1 did not arrest you based upon an arrest warrant, why did they stop and search you?
Irrelevant. I want answers to my questions, not a prosecution. if it was important I would mention it.
No, it isn't irrelevent. It is very relevent to the situation where you claim the search was illegal.

but again, you know everything. I don't even know why you are here asking questions. Why aren't you out teaching in some law school somewhere?

If it weren't for the fact that it was illegal in the first place, the fact that they destroyed my property, and the fact that they are pressing charges themselves which is also illegal regardless of the fact that it is commonly practiced, then you would be right
You claim it is illegal. I suspect they do not agree with you. And to the officers pressing charges? How about the state is pressing charges. That is how it works in a criminal trial.


ALL arrests of any kind MUST have a warrant except in danger, and ALL searches of any kind MUST have either a warrant or consent, except in certain situations.
Where did you get THAT?!?
Constitution for the united States of America.
again, you are just plain wrong. An arrest does not need to have a warrant issued. Dang, in many state I could arrest you and I'm just a plain ol' citizen. No warrant needed.

and I love your explanation about searches. They all need warrants, except in certain situations. Ya, that about covers it. They all need warrants except those that don't.

and of course, your response to me:

again, not true, always and in your situation, I do not believe it would be true, based on your rendition of the story.

But hey, you already have all the answers so why do I bother?

I don't understand your reply. Any evidence of items obtained through an illegal search is always illegal, and I doubt that you would believe that not to be true. but that was the only thing I mentioned as knowing or being a fact in the quote you replied to right there.
there are times where a search may on its' face be improper but due to other circumstances, the evidence recovered by such a search is still admissable. Without knowing why your search was illegal, it is impossible to determine if this is applicable to you or not.

So no, not all evidence gained from an illegal search is considered to be not admissable, sometimes, depending on the situation. But hey, we don't need to know the situation. You have that under control. So, my answer to; is the evidence admissable?

maybe