• 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.

question about searches

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

spiritfild

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? CA

I turned on the radio the other day and landed in the middle of some program that sounded interesting... I was left confused though, since I didn't hear the whole thing. From what I gather, if two people live together, share a house, husband and wife for example, and the police come and want to search, both have to consent to it. If one says yes but one says no, they can't search. Something about shared privacy space or something... is that true? It sort of makes sense.... if they have a warrant to search one person's property, but not the others, how can they distinguish between what is whose? Doesn't the innocent party have a right to privacy? Just wondering what the laws were about that.

Also wondering, after watching some detective show on TV... are there any areas of a house that are off-limits to searchers? Considered private, like drawers or anything?

Oh gosh, the questions just keep coming, I have another. :) If they do come and search your house, is it normal for them to just strew everything that was packed away neatly all over the room and expect you to clean up after them? Especially if all the stuff belongs to the innocent party that had nothing to do with the reason they're searching in the first place? Can they get in any sort of trouble for causing such a mess? This one I ask because it happened to me... and I came in late that night from the airport to find this mess, and spent hours just trying to clean off a place for me to sleep, and put everything back where it was. I was royally pissed, and wondered if this was standard procedure.

And please, Litigation, or whoever you are, if you're not going to say something nice, don't say anything at all.
 


BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
spiritfild said:
What is the name of your state? CA

I turned on the radio the other day and landed in the middle of some program that sounded interesting... I was left confused though, since I didn't hear the whole thing. From what I gather, if two people live together, share a house, husband and wife for example, and the police come and want to search, both have to consent to it. If one says yes but one says no, they can't search. Something about shared privacy space or something... is that true? It sort of makes sense.... if they have a warrant to search one person's property, but not the others, how can they distinguish between what is whose? Doesn't the innocent party have a right to privacy? Just wondering what the laws were about that.
Not true.
Also wondering, after watching some detective show on TV... are there any areas of a house that are off-limits to searchers? Considered private, like drawers or anything?
that depends on the circumstances if a warrantless search and the warrant otherwise.
Oh gosh, the questions just keep coming, I have another. :) If they do come and search your house, is it normal for them to just strew everything that was packed away neatly all over the room and expect you to clean up after them? Especially if all the stuff belongs to the innocent party that had nothing to do with the reason they're searching in the first place? Can they get in any sort of trouble for causing such a mess? This one I ask because it happened to me... and I came in late that night from the airport to find this mess, and spent hours just trying to clean off a place for me to sleep, and put everything back where it was. I was royally pissed, and wondered if this was standard procedure.
That depends on the agency conducting the search. There is no requirement for the search to be conducted in a neat manner.
And please, Litigation, or whoever you are, if you're not going to say something nice, don't say anything at all.
You come to a public forum you don't get to choose who responds.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
What you heard was a discussion concerning a US Supreme Court decision that came down yesterday. What that decision did was throw out the discovery of drugs in a DV case where a wife said the cops could search but hubbie said, "no."

I don't have the source off hand but I am sure someone else will.

if they have a warrant to search one person's property, but not the others, how can they distinguish between what is whose? Doesn't the innocent party have a right to privacy?
The warrant will describe those things and areas to be searched. if the area to be searched falls under the warrant, it can be searched.

Also wondering, after watching some detective show on TV... are there any areas of a house that are off-limits to searchers? Considered private, like drawers or anything?
It depends on the kind of search. If it is a probation search, then any place the probationer can reasonably access is subject to search. So, if a person wants to keep their room in a shared house from being searched, they would be advised to put a lock on the door to prevent access by the probationer otherwise an argument can be made that the probationer has access to the room and it might be subject to search.

If they do come and search your house, is it normal for them to just strew everything that was packed away neatly all over the room and expect you to clean up after them?
They shouldn't tear the place apart and they are liable for any damages. However, this does not mean there is a legal requirement to clean up afterwards. If they leave a mess, the angry homeowner can call the agency to complain.


- Carl
 

tranquility

Senior Member
CdwJave wrote:
What you heard was a discussion concerning a US Supreme Court decision that came down yesterday. What that decision did was throw out the discovery of drugs in a DV case where a wife said the cops could search but hubbie said, "no."
Since it is a slip opinion, the cite is: Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. ___ (2006). The decision seems very narrow.

The police wanted to do a consent search to find evidence against the husband. The wife said it was OK and the husband said NO. Both were at the door with the police during this time. Held, the search was illegal and was distinguished from prior one allows/one does not consent cases by the presence of both parties at the door before the police came in.
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
Actually this has to do with a SUPREME COURT RULING yesterday. The case had to do with a husband and wife, wife called police, wanted to let them in to search for drugs she said her husband had, husband said no, police entered anyway. The supreme court found in his favor with a 5-3 ruling. They said that as long as both people were AT THE DOOR and one of them said no, that the police were not able to enter and to search without a warrant. If only one person came to the door, then they would be able to enter, even it the other person was at home, it wouldn't matter, they must both be AT THE DOOR. It is causing quite an uproar due to the fact that it will set precedence now for example in domestic violence cases, etc. Court is saying that they would not rule the same in the cases where a police officer entered to prevent violence. i am sure you can find more information on the internet.
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
tranquility said:
Since it is a slip opinion, the cite is: Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. ___ (2006). The decision seems very narrow.

The police wanted to do a consent search to find evidence against the husband. The wife said it was OK and the husband said NO. Both were at the door with the police during this time. Held, the search was illegal and was distinguished from prior one allows/one does not consent cases by the presence of both parties at the door before the police came in.
Oh, dang, you typed faster than me, didn't mean to reiterate, you too Carl.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
The thought this morning is that it will still do nothing to overrule a safety exigency to allow officers to enter in order to determine if the parties are safe or not. The decision is thought to simply be such that a wider search will not be permitted but that entry can still be lawful as before.

- Carl
 

tranquility

Senior Member
CdwJava wrote:
The thought this morning is that it will still do nothing to overrule a safety exigency to allow officers to enter in order to determine if the parties are safe or not. The decision is thought to simply be such that a wider search will not be permitted but that entry can still be lawful as before.
I'd have to agree as the issue in the case regarded consent. If the entry is not based on consent, the case probably would not be useful to the person searched. Any exigency would be excluded.

Not TRUTH, but a guess, police might change how they talk to the parties in hopes of avoiding the problems here. Assume same facts. Previously, "May we come in to search?" Now, "Does your husband have drugs in the house?" My question to others is, would this (if the wife answers yes) be enough to establish probable cause and exigent circumstances?
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
tranquility said:
I'd have to agree as the issue in the case regarded consent. If the entry is not based on consent, the case probably would not be useful to the person searched. Any exigency would be excluded.

Not TRUTH, but a guess, police might change how they talk to the parties in hopes of avoiding the problems here. Assume same facts. Previously, "May we come in to search?" Now, "Does your husband have drugs in the house?" My question to others is, would this (if the wife answers yes) be enough to establish probable cause and exigent circumstances?
The statements by the wife alone that there are drugs is not necessarily going to be sufficient to justify a non-consensual search. The wife's statemernt MIGHT be sufficient to justify seizing the premises, securing it, and getting a search warrant ... but I wouldn't want to do that based SOLELY on the statement of an angry wife.

Besides, whose to say the drugs are not hers!? Possession does not mean ownership. If she knows about HIS drugs, SHE can go to jail, too. But, if she says they are in a place where small children can access it, then I might consider entry to secure the scene to protect the children.

Every instance should be evaulated by the specifics of THAT situation. there is no one cookie-cutter response.

- Carl
 

tranquility

Senior Member
The statements by the wife alone that there are drugs is not necessarily going to be sufficient to justify a non-consensual search. The wife's statemernt MIGHT be sufficient to justify seizing the premises, securing it, and getting a search warrant ... but I wouldn't want to do that based SOLELY on the statement of an angry wife.
An angry wife may not be a reiliable informant and agree that may not be enough. I do have a problem with the "seizing the premises" as, if that were within the power of the police, how can there *ever* be a claim of exigent circimstances?

Besides, whose to say the drugs are not hers!? Possession does not mean ownership. If she knows about HIS drugs, SHE can go to jail, too. But, if she says they are in a place where small children can access it, then I might consider entry to secure the scene to protect the children.
Absolutely. She would have admitted knowledge of the drugs. That could be a problem for her, making her statement against interest more reliable.

Every instance should be evaulated by the specifics of THAT situation. there is no one cookie-cutter response.
Of course, "without the facts, there is no issue". But, proceedure is based on the case law. I was just thinking out loud about how the police might do things differently in the future in similar situations.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
tranquility said:
An angry wife may not be a reiliable informant and agree that may not be enough. I do have a problem with the "seizing the premises" as, if that were within the power of the police, how can there *ever* be a claim of exigent circimstances?
If we are intending to obtain a warrant, we can often secure the premises in anticipation of the warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence. It's rare, but we do have occasion to do just that.

Of course, "without the facts, there is no issue". But, proceedure is based on the case law. I was just thinking out loud about how the police might do things differently in the future in similar situations.
I don't think this will have any practical effect on how we do things. I Do think it will afford challenges to arrests based upon a forced entry citing an exigency,m however. It will require us to articulate the exigency much better than we might have previously been doing.

However, it is very rare that we are refused entry by either party at a DV. Plus, being invited in to speak is not the same as being invited in to search. A person who resides there can still allow us inside even against the will of the other party ... at least until THAT gets to the USSC.

- Carl
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
CdwJava said:
If we are intending to obtain a warrant, we can often secure the premises in anticipation of the warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence. It's rare, but we do have occasion to do just that.


I don't think this will have any practical effect on how we do things. I Do think it will afford challenges to arrests based upon a forced entry citing an exigency,m however. It will require us to articulate the exigency much better than we might have previously been doing.

However, it is very rare that we are refused entry by either party at a DV. Plus, being invited in to speak is not the same as being invited in to search. A person who resides there can still allow us inside even against the will of the other party ... at least until THAT gets to the USSC.

- Carl
And once invited in, anything in plain site is still admissible.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top