Illeagal search and seizure in my apt.

[sshuck]

What is the name of your state? TX

I am a college student that lives in an apt complex for students. In our contract it states that our landlord can come into our apt. to check for “safety hazards” during Christmas break. So nobody was in our apt at this time. When we came back from Christmas break our apartment looked a little empty. Well we had street signs up on our wall in the common room that were not there when we came back. We had a note from the landlord that the signs were taken and also that the police were called, no warrant was served. We went to talk to the landlord and she said that the stolen street signs (never proven that they were stolen...assumptions only) were a violation of our contract and that she called the cops and we had to move in May. She never disclosed how the signs were taken. I figure they were 1) taken by the landlord and then the landlord turned them over to the police, or 2) the police were given access to our apartment with out a warrant by the landlord by either opening the door for them or by leaving the door open so when the cops came by they seen the signs thus giving them probable cause to enter.

My question is was any of this illegal? I am seeing no legal standing on this. Now my roommates and I have a huge fine and a warrant. We have been trying to get answers on this situation and have not been getting very clear ones. I have been told that it is definitely illegal because the landlord gave them access to our apartment he is not legally able to do so. The contract strictly says that we give them the right to enter our apt. on Christmas break for safety hazars and any other entry must be concentual by the residents. It does not state that if there is any stolen property (which is still not proven) than they can confinscate it. If the police enter my apartment they need a search warrant if I am correct.

We are just trying to figure out what our options are because we cannot afford a lawyer and we definitely can’t afford the fines.

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? TX

I am a college student that lives in an apt complex for students. In our contract it states that our landlord can come into our apt. to check for “safety hazards” during Christmas break. So nobody was in our apt at this time. When we came back from Christmas break our apartment looked a little empty. Well we had street signs up on our wall in the common room that were not there when we came back. We had a note from the landlord that the signs were taken and also that the police were called, no warrant was served. We went to talk to the landlord and she said that the stolen street signs (never proven that they were stolen...assumptions only) were a violation of our contract and that she called the cops and we had to move in May. She never disclosed how the signs were taken. I figure they were 1) taken by the landlord and then the landlord turned them over to the police, or 2) the police were given access to our apartment with out a warrant by the landlord by either opening the door for them or by leaving the door open so when the cops came by they seen the signs thus giving them probable cause to enter.

My question is was any of this illegal? I am seeing no legal standing on this. Now my roommates and I have a huge fine and a warrant. We have been trying to get answers on this situation and have not been getting very clear ones. I have been told that it is definitely illegal because the landlord gave them access to our apartment he is not legally able to do so. The contract strictly says that we give them the right to enter our apt. on Christmas break for safety hazars and any other entry must be concentual by the residents. It does not state that if there is any stolen property (which is still not proven) than they can confinscate it. If the police enter my apartment they need a search warrant if I am correct.

We are just trying to figure out what our options are because we cannot afford a lawyer and we definitely can’t afford the fines.

Q: My question is was any of this illegal?

A: Yes. You having stolen property was illegal.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Presumably, Texas (like many states), outlaws the possession of "street signs" (I don't have the time to check). If so, then you are what we like to call "up $hit creek without a paddle".

The reason is actually quite simple, but since everyone needs to start looking things up for themselves, I'll just get you started and you can do the research yourself. Your task? Figure out exactly who the 4th Amendment applies to, and then apply that to your situation.

 

[HomeGuru]

YAG, great in giving homework assignment to this student.

 

[seniorjudge]

YAG, great in giving homework assignment to this student.

And he should also research to find out what property interest a thief has in stolen property.

 

[sshuck]

I know the laws regarding the signs. I assume the signs probably are stolen but there is NO PROOF that they are stolen. My question doesn't involve the stolen property, my question has to do with the way my apartment was entered and the property taken out of our apartment with out a warrant and the actions of my landlord and the police.

 

[CdwJava]

I know the laws regarding the signs. I assume the signs probably are stolen but there is NO PROOF that they are stolen. My question doesn't involve the stolen property, my question has to do with the way my apartment was entered and the property taken out of our apartment with out a warrant and the actions of my landlord and the police.

Until you know how the signs were retrieved, this cannot be answered.

If the landlord took them down and handed them to the police ... oh well, you're out of luck. And it there is a warrant for your arrest, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that the police think they CAN prove where the signs came from. It's not like street signs can be purchased at the local Circle K ... we CAN track them down.

If the cops came in at the request of the landlord there can be justification for this. You really won't know anything until you get to court or your attorney gets a copy of any police report.

Next time, don't have stolen property hanging around. And I'm sure you KNOW where the signs came from. Your insistance that there is no PROOF that they are stolen just bolsters that opinion that they are stolen. Most guilty people say that. Innocent people deny that they are stolen ... guilty people ask you to prove it.

- Carl

 

[You Are Guilty]

My roommate freshman year in college had a "No Dumping - $500 Fine" sign he "liberated" from a local park hanging in our bathroom. About a month later, it disappeared. He spoke to the resident assistant who suggested that he could either 'drop it' or she could report it to the campus police to handle like she was supposed to.

Guess which option he chose?


PS: Carl, you're giving away the answers here. Students don't learn anything if you spoon-feed them!

 

[seniorjudge]

I know the laws regarding the signs. I assume the signs probably are stolen but there is NO PROOF that they are stolen. My question doesn't involve the stolen property, my question has to do with the way my apartment was entered and the property taken out of our apartment with out a warrant and the actions of my landlord and the police.

You have NO interest in stolen property.

Therefore, there was no illegal search or illegal seizure.

Period.

End of story.

Even if.

 

[Kane]

Carl, dishonest guilty people say they're innocent, honest ones ask for proof. I prefer honest guilty people over dishonest ones anyday. In any case, it is up to the state to prove a person's guilt, and that applies to guilty people as well as innocent ones.

As for the OP's question, without knowing how the signs were seized, I don't know whether they were seized legally. One of the disadvantages of renting is that you give up some of your privacy to the landlord, since he's the one who actually owns the place where you're living.

I'm also not sure what law he's charged with violating. Is it a municipal ordinance or a state law? Is it for possession of the signs, or for stealing them?

As a practical matter, if it's a class "C" offense, the easiest and cheapest thing to do may be just to pay the fine. Regardless of what you decide to do, make sure you show up for your court date, and consider asking the prosecutor, when you talk to him, about offering a deferred disposition.

 

[Kane]

You have NO interest in stolen property.

Therefore, there was no illegal search or illegal seizure.

Period.

End of story.

Even if.

Judge, that's not correct. The mere fact that a search ultimately turns up something illegal doesn't retroactively justify the search.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, dishonest guilty people say they're innocent, honest ones ask for proof.

My comment was regarding innocent and guilty folks - not honest versus dishonest.

The innocent tend to vociferously deny the accusation ... the guilty tend to deny and then ask you to prove it. There are exceptions, but this is the generality.

It's just the way it is.

I prefer honest guilty people over dishonest ones anyday.

That goes without saying. The problem is that because they are guilty, they also very often tend to be unbelievable.

In any case, it is up to the state to prove a person's guilt, and that applies to guilty people as well as innocent ones.

True

As for the OP's question, without knowing how the signs were seized, I don't know whether they were seized legally.

My point exactly.

I'm also not sure what law he's charged with violating. Is it a municipal ordinance or a state law? Is it for possession of the signs, or for stealing them?

My guess woul dbe for possession of stolen property. Some cities do not sell their signs and the only way to have such a sign is for it to be stolen. Others sell them at auction from time to time, but they tend to mark those that have been sold to distinguish them from signs that have been hauled off the corner.

It varies by jurisdiction, I'm sure.


- Carl

 

[seniorjudge]

Judge, that's not correct. The mere fact that a search ultimately turns up something illegal doesn't retroactively justify the search.

This has nothing to do with the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

http://www.iand.uscourts.gov/iand/decisions.nsf/0/51976abb5267d06486256aa200715dac?OpenDocument

...

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Stolen Property

First, the government contends that the defendant cannot challenge the search of the laptop computer because the defendant does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in stolen property. Fourth Amendment rights are personal in nature and may not be vicariously asserted. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 (1969); United States v. McCaster, 193 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 1999). When a defendant claims he should be protected under the Fourth Amendment, "a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable . . . ." Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998). The defendant must be "able to show the violation of his (and not someone else's) Fourth Amendment rights . . . .'" Id. To show a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, the defendant must show he had an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in an area in which society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring).

....

 

[mycarlb]

My comment was regarding innocent and guilty folks - not honest versus dishonest.

The innocent tend to vociferously deny the accusation ... the guilty tend to deny and then ask you to prove it. There are exceptions, but this is the generality.

It's just the way it is.



That goes without saying. The problem is that because they are guilty, they also very often tend to be unbelievable.



True



My point exactly.



My guess woul dbe for possession of stolen property. Some cities do not sell their signs and the only way to have such a sign is for it to be stolen. Others sell them at auction from time to time, but they tend to mark those that have been sold to distinguish them from signs that have been hauled off the corner.

It varies by jurisdiction, I'm sure.


- Carl

just like the guilty that say "no one saw me do anything"...LOL isnt rocket science to figure out. Innocent people would simply deny doing it...I love that "there's no proof" aliby... so lame

 

[CdwJava]

just like the guilty that say "no one saw me do anything"...LOL isnt rocket science to figure out. Innocent people would simply deny doing it...I love that "there's no proof" aliby... so lame

It's like the guys we were talking to last night ...

"He said he saw me? I didn't do it... okay, maybe I was there, but I didn't do it. Well ... what else did he say? Did anyone else see me?"

Typical.

- Carl