Articles Tagged with illegal search and seizure

There are restrictions issued to law enforcement officers on when and how they can execute a California search warrant. Nonetheless, mistakes and errors can and do occur during the execution of warrants. Unless a search is authorized by you, incident to a lawful arrest, or some other exception provided by law, a valid search warrant must be obtained before the search is conducted. Any violation of these rules may result in a reduction in your criminal charges, dismissal of the evidence unlawfully obtained, and even dismissal of your criminal charges.

A search warrant allows the police to search you, your home, your car, and your place of business. The police can even search an area suspected of containing evidence of illegal activity so long as it is specified in the search warrant.

Storming into homes with guns, protective armor, lights, dogs, and law enforcement personnel, usually during the early dawn hours, catches everyone in the home off guard and leads to avoidable deaths, unnecessary injuries, and costly legal settlements with survivors.

In a December no-knock drug raid in Houston, two suspects were shot and killed and five police officers were injured. Even the family pet was shot in the crossfire. The pet survived, but both of his owners died. The results of the raid were so bad that the Houston Police Department no longer conducts no-knock raids during low-level criminal investigations of a nonviolent nature.  

No-Knock Warrants

A no-knock warrant is issued by a judge and gives police permission to enter a property by force without prior notification to its occupants or requesting their permission. These types of warrants are often precipitated by a tip from an informant. The informant is the person who cooperates with the police and provides information about the people or companies under criminal investigation. The use of informants is common in criminal investigations, especially those involving illegal drug sales and distribution. So long as the informant’s information is reliable, it will satisfy a low threshold to support a finding of probable cause to issue the search warrant. The judge may inquire about the identity of the informant, examine past instances when the informant assisted law enforcement and the results of such cooperation. The police will also be called in to testify and corroborate the informant’s testimony.   Continue reading

On July 5, 2016, defendant David Ramirez of Yolo County, California filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to CA Penal Code § 1538.5 through his attorney. Mr. Ramirez is charged with possessing a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia, both of which he has claimed was discovered during an illegal traffic stop. Back in January of 2016, Mr. Ramirez was a passenger in a car that was stopped for a cracked rear taillight. The deputies allegedly questioned all the passengers including Mr. Ramirez, and they were asked to be detained for a pat-down (frisk) search. The driver and front seat passenger consented and were searched, and nothing was found.

Mr. Ramirez however, did not consent to the search (and was well within his rights not to consent). The police further pushed and allegedly stated they were only looking for weapons.  After Mr. Ramirez consented, the police then reportedly found a meth pipe, which was seized.  Mr. Ramirez has argued that his search was unlawful, and the evidence resulting from the search must be suppressed under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, as detailed in People v. Williams (1988).

When Does the Exclusionary Rule Apply?