Had a fire on 2nd floor. Police searched all over after fire was out with no warrant.

[Elementalist]

What is the name of your state (Illinois)?

On January 20th there was a fire on the 2nd floor of my house, we called the fire department. After about 2 or 3 hours the fire was out, at this time the state police entered our house and searched not only the 2nd floor but the first floor and basement where no fire had occurred. The whole while we sat in our cars staying warm, we were not allowed to leave. In the end the fire was deemed electrical. The police that searched claim to have found the materials needed for a meth lab. They found pirex baking dishes out of my kitchen, an aquarium filter and pump off of my aquarium, a drain pipe off of my furnace in the basement, and a few cold packs i had for my back. They got these items from all over my house and put it all on my bed in my room and cataloged it as evidence. They went through everything in my room & the rest of the house and scattered it all over the house, the fire was no where near my room and it was in fact locked.

Its now 3 months later and they have charged me with manufacturing and possession of precursors or something along those lines. I have never had anything to do with meth. I admit i do buy cold pills but i have a legitimate reason for having them. =/

I have been doing some research and according to supreme court cases Michigan v. Tyler and Michigan v. Clifford, they cannot search outside of the scope of finding the cause of the fire. Also after the fire is out it is no longer an emergency situation and they must get a warrant. Also, if they are there for a fire they cannot search specifically for criminal activity and can only seize something in plain sight.

I have talked to a lawyer and he agrees 100% with me but we haven't been to court yet so i have no idea how this will all turn out.

What do you think my chances are of getting the case dropped?

 

[ERAUPIKE]

What is the name of your state (Illinois)?

On January 20th there was a fire on the 2nd floor of my house, we called the fire department. After about 2 or 3 hours the fire was out, at this time the state police entered our house and searched not only the 2nd floor but the first floor and basement where no fire had occurred. The whole while we sat in our cars staying warm, we were not allowed to leave. In the end the fire was deemed electrical. The police that searched claim to have found the materials needed for a meth lab. They found pirex baking dishes out of my kitchen, an aquarium filter and pump off of my aquarium, a drain pipe off of my furnace in the basement, and a few cold packs i had for my back. They got these items from all over my house and put it all on my bed in my room and cataloged it as evidence. They went through everything in my room & the rest of the house and scattered it all over the house, the fire was no where near my room and it was in fact locked.

Its now 3 months later and they have charged me with manufacturing and possession of precursors or something along those lines. I have never had anything to do with meth. I admit i do buy cold pills but i have a legitimate reason for having them. =/

I have been doing some research and according to supreme court cases Michigan v. Tyler and Michigan v. Clifford, they cannot search outside of the scope of finding the cause of the fire. Also after the fire is out it is no longer an emergency situation and they must get a warrant. Also, if they are there for a fire they cannot search specifically for criminal activity and can only seize something in plain sight.

I have talked to a lawyer and he agrees 100% with me but we haven't been to court yet so i have no idea how this will all turn out.

What do you think my chances are of getting the case dropped?

What is your legitimate reason for buying an inordinate amount of cold medicine?

What did the lawyer tell you when you talked to him/her? If you have hired representation, it won't do you any good to have strangers with no access to the details of your case to second guess your lawyers opinions.

 

[tranquility]

Getting the case dropped? About zero. You are a long way away from having the case dropped. What you have is that, maybe, some of the evidence is not allowed in. It's not an all or nothing thing.

You need an attorney. Even if you are 100% correct that this was an illegal search and there is no probable cause without the evidence, there's still a ton of work to do before it gets excluded.

Attorney. Attorney. Attorney.

 

[Elementalist]

What is your legitimate reason for buying an inordinate amount of cold medicine?

What did the lawyer tell you when you talked to him/her? If you have hired representation, it won't do you any good to have strangers with no access to the details of your case to second guess your lawyers opinions.

b4 the fire i used to buy atleast a box of cold pills a month because i have a deviated septum and it helps me breath. Now I'm suffering because i don't dare buy any medicine =/

I'm just trying to cover all my bases in case me or my lawyer has missed anything.

 

[swalsh411]

Buying OTC medicine for a legitimate purpose will not get you in more trouble.

 

[CdwJava]

I have been doing some research and according to supreme court cases Michigan v. Tyler and Michigan v. Clifford, they cannot search outside of the scope of finding the cause of the fire. Also after the fire is out it is no longer an emergency situation and they must get a warrant. Also, if they are there for a fire they cannot search specifically for criminal activity and can only seize something in plain sight.

I have talked to a lawyer and he agrees 100% with me but we haven't been to court yet so i have no idea how this will all turn out.

What do you think my chances are of getting the case dropped?

Without knowing what the state's case is, or the justification for the search, no one can say. I would tend to agree that a search warrant would appear to have been required, but there may be more in play here.

Keep working with the attorney. And, if you have a drug problem, take this opportunity to get clean.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Two to three hours later sounds like they had time to get a search warrant. Did they?

If the firefighters saw what they thought was a meth lab while they were inside doing their job, that would provide sufficient probable cause for the police to obtain a search warrant.

If this search was done without a warrant, I'd guess there's a good chance the evidence can be suppressed.

If the search was conducted with a search warrant, that was obtained for the purpose of gathering evidence of a meth lab, the evidence will probably stay in. In that case, you will need to argue the sufficiency of the evidence to show that the meth lab did or did not exist.

Seriously, you need a lawyer.

 

[Elementalist]

Two to three hours later sounds like they had time to get a search warrant. Did they?

I have never seen a warrant, if they got one wouldn't they have to give me a copy? I'm sure if there was one it will come up in discovery.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

I have never seen a warrant, if they got one wouldn't they have to give me a copy? I'm sure if there was one it will come up in discovery.

No, the Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the search warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to establish legal authority to conduct the search and create a paper trail in case the search is challenged.

It is proper for the police to temporarily "detain a residence" from the outside, preventing people from entering, when there is a reasonable suspicion that contraband or evidence of a crime is inside, at least until the officers can determine through their investigation whether to seek a search warrant. (People v. Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373.)

 

[startedone]

You admitted to buying the medicine? You should not have done that ... you need to discontinue speaking with the police.

 

[Elementalist]

No, the Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the search warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to establish legal authority to conduct the search and create a paper trail in case the search is challenged.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41
Quoted from f(C) on that page.

"Receipt. The officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property."

What do you think?

 

[CdwJava]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41
Quoted from f(C) on that page.

"Receipt. The officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property."

What do you think?

I think that is a federal rule, and not a matter of Illinois law (the OP's state).

In my state we generally have to leave a copy of the warrant. But, that may not be true in all states.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

I think that is a federal rule, and not a matter of Illinois law (the OP's state).

In my state we generally have to leave a copy of the warrant. But, that may not be true in all states.

Illinois has the same rule, 725 ILCS Article 108. Is it just me or has this post taken on a tone of someone working on their homework?

 

[Elementalist]

Illinois has the same rule, 725 ILCS Article 108. Is it just me or has this post taken on a tone of someone working on their homework?

Boy do i wish this was homework. Ty for pointing me in the right direction.

I don't think the judge would allow suppression because they forgot to leave a copy of the search warrant at the scene. But its one nick in their cases armor.

But i highly doubt they got a warrant, they were hoping for extigent circumstances. They went in to search after the fire was out so that shouldn't count as extigent circumstance or am i wrong? The evidence is in no imminent threat of destruction after the fire has been extinguished.

 

[Ladyback1]

Boy do i wish this was homework. Ty for pointing me in the right direction.

I don't think the judge would allow suppression because they forgot to leave a copy of the search warrant at the scene. But its one nick in their cases armor.

But i highly doubt they got a warrant, they were hoping for extigent circumstances. They went in to search after the fire was out so that shouldn't count as extigent circumstance or am i wrong? The evidence is in no imminent threat of destruction after the fire has been extinguished.

ahhh...but, if the fire was suspicious or if there was anything to indicate the fire could have been started as a result as drug manufacturing I *think* they might have probable cause to search even without a warrant. I could be wrong.