What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NEW YORK, 8 months ago my car was illegally searched ( Which i can Prove ) and seized . the next morning convinently a search warrant was on my front seat when i picked up my truck but they didn't get the warrant till 8 to 12 hours after they initially searched my car on the spot . Now inside my car was a legal envalope paid and addressed to (John Doe Attorney At Law, Ny, New York 12345,) inside my car sealed with sensitive contents . now this item i can't say for sure if they opened and read it before or after they got the warrent , i believe it was before . my question is with a warrant or not do law Enforcement have the authority to open legal documents addressed to a Lawyer ? isn't there a lawyer / client privacy privilege ? if so can someone provide me the Section Law Code so i can look it up . thanks in advance .
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Illigal search of car and sealed sencitive contents addressed to attorney
- Thread starter mloria001
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
justalayman
Senior Member
If there was a valid reason to issue a search warrant then the exigency concern with it being a vehicle would allow for a search without first obtaining a search warrant.
What were they searching for? Whether they were allowed to look inside the envelope is going to be determined by that and not the claimed attorney issue. Looking inside of an envelope does not mean the documents within were read.
What were they searching for? Whether they were allowed to look inside the envelope is going to be determined by that and not the claimed attorney issue. Looking inside of an envelope does not mean the documents within were read.
You are partially right. As long as there is reasonable suspicion (not probable cause, probable cause would allow them to search right there) that a crime is afoot they can seize your car to make sure the evidence remain while they request a search warrant. The catch is once they seize your car they are required to do an inventory of your property for your protection. If they do find that a crime has been commited while inventorying your car then they can search. For instance, they open your trunk and there is a bag of coke in the open, then your car is fair game. However, if the coke was hidden in the trunk lining or in the spare wheel if they find it it could not be used against you.
Pertaining to the envelope, they can look in the envelope and more than likely they read the contents but as long as its addressed to your attorney and you are seeking legal information or you are in an active relationship with the attorney then it becomes priveliged communication and cannot be used against you in court because it would not be allowed in court. There is no statute that governs this, this is more about rules of evidence and case law.
Keep in mind that they know what the contents of the envelope are, there is nothing that can stop them from using that information to further investigate you, they just can't use it in court.
Pertaining to the envelope, they can look in the envelope and more than likely they read the contents but as long as its addressed to your attorney and you are seeking legal information or you are in an active relationship with the attorney then it becomes priveliged communication and cannot be used against you in court because it would not be allowed in court. There is no statute that governs this, this is more about rules of evidence and case law.
Keep in mind that they know what the contents of the envelope are, there is nothing that can stop them from using that information to further investigate you, they just can't use it in court.
Last edited:
justalayman
Senior Member
I hope you aren't addressing me because you are wrong. They can search the car IF a it is believed a search warrant would be issued based upon the cops knowledge. In other words, if they believe a warrant would be issued based on the information known, the exigency rule allows them to actually search the vehicle without a warrant being issued.
They cannot seize a vehicle unless there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed that would otherwise allow them to seize the vehicle. Strangely enough that same probable cause is adequate to allow a search sans warrant.
If you notice the car was searched prior to being seized. Either there was a warrant already issued (even if it wasn't present on scene) or the OP gave permission to allow the search or there was probable cause to search the vehicle.
and just in case you want to stick with your reasonable suspicion argument allowing a seizure of the vehicle; I think this tends to suggest otherwise:
Amendment IV
Last edited:
CdwJava
Senior Member
What makes you believe it was "illegally" searched?
The law tends to grant law enforcement the ability to search a car if they have probable cause to believe there is contraband in the vehicle as well as for other reasons (such as a pre-storage impound).
It could be that they made the initial search, found what they believed was evidence, and then sought the search warrant to look further. We don't know.
Okay.
Whether they could look in the envelope or not depends on facts we do not have.
So, perhaps you can tell us why they searched your car in the first place, and why they impounded it?
When you prove your car was illegally searched, everything the police found will be excluded from evidence.
^^^^fixed that for you.
I was addressing you. You were partially right before but now you are dead wrong. There is no such thing as probable cause based on the officers knowledge that a warrant would be issued "that is called reasonable suspicion." In applying resonable suspicion the officer makes a guess based on his experience, training, and knowledge. If he is wrong then whatever he found gets tossed. The exigent circumstance does not apply to cases like this, that applies in cases of emergency or a fleeing felon, or other dangerous circumstances. e.g. there's a bomb in the car. Under resonable suspicion the officer uses the totality of circumstances test and makes a decision on whether there is a crime. At this point he cannot search the car but he can temporarily detain (seize) the car and try to get a warrant.
Even if a crime was commited and the officer searched the car 'incident to arrest' he would still only be able to look in areas pertaining to that specific reason for the arrest. For instance, he cannot take off the panels of your door if you were arrested for child support payments, but he could do that if you were arrested for drug trafficking. In order for the car to be fully serached a search warrant has to be issued.
We are well aware of the 4th amendment. However, it is case law which establishes probable cause as well as reasonable suspicion.
Last edited:
justalayman
Senior Member
Jada. You have no idea what you are talking about.
You have no idea about what reasonable suspicion is. You have no idea about the issue of "being wrong" and evidence discovered getting tossed.
You are completely wrong about what constitutes exigent circumstances.
You are wrong about the reasonable suspicion and the cops right to search your car. It requires Probable cause and nothing less. You need to do a little research for your own edification. I'm not in the mood to spoon feed somebody like you.
You have no idea about what reasonable suspicion is. You have no idea about the issue of "being wrong" and evidence discovered getting tossed.
You are completely wrong about what constitutes exigent circumstances.
You are wrong about the reasonable suspicion and the cops right to search your car. It requires Probable cause and nothing less. You need to do a little research for your own edification. I'm not in the mood to spoon feed somebody like you.
Last edited:
Do not contradict senior members. They are ALWAYS right.
Do not spout out uneducated guesses to people looking for legal help. Are you angry because you have been corrected several times? Too bad.
tranquility
Senior Member
Google United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798
justalayman
Senior Member
I'm not always right. I continue to strive to learn so I can be right most of the time but in this case jada is the one that is incorrect.
single317dad
Senior Member
To address only the issue of OP's mail being opened and searched, sealed mail is not nearly as protected as many people think (not to mention that the mail had apparently not yet been trandferred to the possession of the post office). Border security, prison security, TSA, police with warrants, customs agents, and even the post office themselves regularly open and inspect mail. In fact, if you read the terms of the Media Mail service (as one example), postal employees may (and frequently do) open and inspect Media Mail packages and will even do so at the counter and require you to repackage to meet the guidelines.
TO address the issue of privilege, jal's question "what were they looking for" is relevant, as well as the question "what was in the envelope?" (note: I do not necessarily recommend OP answer that question). Some related reading:
http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2009/03/search-warrants-and-attorney-client.html
TO address the issue of privilege, jal's question "what were they looking for" is relevant, as well as the question "what was in the envelope?" (note: I do not necessarily recommend OP answer that question). Some related reading:
http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2009/03/search-warrants-and-attorney-client.html
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">