• 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.

Search warrant validity on its face

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

assassin

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

police served a search warrant on my house
the warrant had the wrong address,name,and city
police arrived showed and presented this warrant with wrong address,name and city,i told them that i do not want them going into my home,i do not consent to a search of my house,they went in anyway
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************....
according to the law police do not have to have a warrant present when executing a search warrant as long as a judge signed one

police are not required to show a search warrant

but if police do provide and produce a search warrant it has to be valid on its face,have correct name,address,city

if i were driving and get stopped and police ask me for my id,is it legal for me to provide them with a drivers license with somebody elses name on it?of course not.

the law requires me to carry some form of id,if i drive i am requires to have a drivers license,

in the same terms if police come to my house with a search warrant it must have my name on it period,just as if i drive i must drive with a license with my name on it,i cannot drive with someone elses license.and traffic is petty,here were talking about my right to be secure in my home against unreasonable searches,4th amendment rights,and the cionstitution

there was a valid warrant,probable after the fact,but the warrat they came to my home with was invalid on its face,

the police at no time came here with an exact copy of warrant,they took property,and no copy of warrant was left,this is wrong.they saw the obviious errors,and failed to correct them.this isnt a good faith or if the judge signed one even if the police served one with a different name,address,city,its still a good search,BULL****!!!!!! i am by law required to show a license with my name on it if i drive,police executing search warrants are required to have one with my name on it
 


justalayman

Senior Member
is this just a rant?

there are rules as to what they can do and cannot do. If evidence was seized and there was not a valid warrant (anywhere) and the rules were not followed, your attorney can argue to suppress any evidence discovered.

and many states allow you to present a license later and have the ticket dismissed if you got a ticket for not having the license on you.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
police served a search warrant on my house
the warrant had the wrong address,name,and city
police arrived showed and presented this warrant with wrong address,name and city,i told them that i do not want them going into my home,i do not consent to a search of my house,they went in anyway
Did they have a valid search warrant somewhere?

Did they make a mistake and present you with the wrong warrant at the scene, but had a good one at the office or somewhere else?

If there was a valid warrant somewhere, that should be sufficient to permit lawful entry. If no warrant existed at all, anywhere, then you should consider yourself lucky as any evidence seized without consent would be subject to suppression with little effort.

according to the law police do not have to have a warrant present when executing a search warrant as long as a judge signed one
Correct. However, a copy of the warrant is supposed to be left at the scene if not provided at the time of entry. However, this failure to leave a copy should have nothing to do with the lawfulness of the search.

if i were driving and get stopped and police ask me for my id,is it legal for me to provide them with a drivers license with somebody elses name on it?of course not.
However, the law requires you to possess YOUR valid driver's license and it offers up penalties for NOT having it. The penalty for not presenting the warrant does not include suppression of the evidence.

there was a valid warrant,probable after the fact,but the warrat they came to my home with was invalid on its face,
It will be easy to determine the validity of the warrant as the police and the judge will have to have recorded when it was signed. If AFTER the search, then lucky for you. If they are that stupid, then I would assume you would sue them intio oblivion and someone should lose their job.

the police at no time came here with an exact copy of warrant,they took property,and no copy of warrant was left,this is wrong.
Yep. And they should have left a receipt for seized property, too. However, NOT leaving these things will not result in suppression of the evidence by themselves.

Consult an attorney and he can access all the relevant reports and information and make an educated decision on how to proceed.
 

assassin

Junior Member
you asked:
Did they make a mistake and present you with the wrong warrant at the scene, but had a good one at the office or somewhere else?

a mistake? police are suppose to protect and serve,they have a responsibility to proof read a warrant,and if errors are noticed they have the responsibility to correct them

there is a valid warrant now,but again if they produced one and gave one when they were here and realized it was invalid on its face they had a chance to correct it.even on there way here they should of made sure they had a warrant wih the right info

the fact that they gave one when they got here they were uder the assumption they had one with my info,when i didnt consent to the search because of the validity on its face and told them to get warrant with my name,city,and address,they couldnt provide one with my name on it.

its absurd that the police come to my home provide me with a warrant for a hispanic male,wrong address,and wrong city and say here is the warrant with nothing at all to do with me,and this warrant allows us to search this residence.how is this legal?at that moment the police should have made a call,or went and got the valid one with my name on it.

i mean if i were a police officer and have been executing search warrants for 20 years i would know if i had a warrant for a residence im on the way to search,and if provided a serch warrant to the individual whos residence i was searching,that would mean i believed a had a warrant describing the name resicence and city where i am executing this warrant,and therefore it should have the correct info on it,

when the person at this residence looks a this warrant and tells me this warrant has the wrong address,name,and city on it,i look at the warant and see what he said is true,not having yet made entry into he residence,and when asked that i provide a search warrant with the correct name,city and address,since i provided a wrong search warrant,i am obligated to provide a warrant with the correct name,address and city,

if my job is to protect and serve,i will not present a search warrant and execute it realizing the warrant i provided at the residence had the wrong name,address,and city on it.

that way at least i would like to at least think i have rights

the 4th amendment says i have the right to be secure in my home against unreasonable searches and seizures

a search warrant executed at my home,detailing the wrong name,address,and city was given to me,when i gave them back and told them
this warrant does not have my name,address,and the wrong city on it,and made it clear i dont consent to a search,the police visually seeing the extensive errors on the face of the warrant,making no effort what so ever to have one brought where it was valid on its face,makes this an unreasonable search period.

if the police were to tell me that there is a warrant but we didnt bring it,i might be ok with that

on the other hand if they hand me a warrant with wrong name city and address,and they knew before going in my home,being they presented a warrant,it has to be the correct one,valid on its face.

there is a valid one now i believe after he fact.my point is that if they came to my residence and provided me a search warrant they believed they had a valid one,when i did not consent to a search without a valid warrant,they have a responsibility to provide me with a correct one,i mean they gave me one,they believed they had the valid one on them,they were not able to provide me with it when i demanded it.

plus the warrant they came hare with was 17 days old.and as you said if they didnt have a valid one at the time i would be able to sue them ito oblivion and some people will loose here jobs.

the police and judges will never let that happen,they cover there own asses,they make up paperwork,an
 

assassin

Junior Member
is this just a rant?

there are rules as to what they can do and cannot do. If evidence was seized and there was not a valid warrant (anywhere) and the rules were not followed, your attorney can argue to suppress any evidence discovered.

and many states allow you to present a license later and have the ticket dismissed if you got a ticket for not having the license on you.
but he fact is i am required to have a valid license when i drive,and if the police ask me to provide identification or a drivers licence,i can not hand them a licence with aother persons name,address,and city on it,and furthermore if i told the officer im going to continue driving with that wrong license whether he likes it or not,would i get away with that?of course not.

would i be able to fill out a job application in some one elses name on it and work under that name?of course not

would i be able to get into disneyland with a magic mountain ticket?of course not.

would i be able to return a stove i purchased with the reciept for a dishwasher?

can i gio to the d.m.v and get a id card with some one elses birth certificate?


all of these scenarios would prevent me from what im trying to do,it is my responsibility to have the proper paperwork with me in order to get into disneyland,or return the stove

there is no difference as to police wanting entry into my resisence
they must have proper paperwork to do this

everything in this world requires proper paperwork to do things,anythig you return must have a valid reciept,

and when it comes to 4th amendment rights,and constitutional rights,being secure aginst unreasonable searches,all this doesnt apply?thats ludicrious
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
but he fact is i am required to have a valid license when i drive,and if the police ask me to provide identification or a drivers licence,i can not hand them a licence with aother persons name,address,and city on it,and furthermore if i told the officer im going to continue driving with that wrong license whether he likes it or not,would i get away with that?of course not.

would i be able to fill out a job application in some one elses name on it and work under that name?of course not

would i be able to get into disneyland with a magic mountain ticket?of course not.

would i be able to return a stove i purchased with the reciept for a dishwasher?

can i gio to the d.m.v and get a id card with some one elses birth certificate?


all of these scenarios would prevent me from what im trying to do,it is my responsibility to have the proper paperwork with me in order to get into disneyland,or return the stove

there is no difference as to police wanting entry into my resisence
they must have proper paperwork to do this

everything in this world requires proper paperwork to do things,anythig you return must have a valid reciept,

and when it comes to 4th amendment rights,and constitutional rights,being secure aginst unreasonable searches,all this doesnt apply?thats ludicrious
**A: ok, cut the crap. What did the police find when they searched your place?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
and when it comes to 4th amendment rights,and constitutional rights,being secure aginst unreasonable searches,all this doesnt apply?
sure it applies.

was there a valid warrant or not?

I don't care if it was there or not but was there a valid warrant to search your house, anywhere in the world, at the time of the search?

It's not about if they had the paper to prove it to you. What matters is if there was a warrant or not.

would i be able to fill out a job application in some one elses name on it and work under that name?of course not
it happens all the time

would i be able to get into disneyland with a magic mountain ticket?of course not.
no idea. never had the desire to go to disney

would i be able to return a stove i purchased with the reciept for a dishwasher?
why yes, you very likely could

can i gio to the d.m.v and get a id card with some one elses birth certificate?
absolutely. it happens a lot.
 

BOR

Senior Member
the police at no time came here with an exact copy of warrant,they took property,and no copy of warrant was left,this is wrong.they saw the obviious errors,and failed to correct them.this isnt a good faith or if the judge signed one even if the police served one with a different name,address,city,its still a good search,BULL****!!!!!! i am by law required to show a license with my name on it if i drive,police executing search warrants are required to have one with my name on it
Whether or not a copy is to be left is stirctly state law specific.

Since you mention "good faith" there is a US SC case dealing with this called the Leon exception (good faith exception). If a search is founded on a warrant that later turns out be be invalid, as long as the police believed it was, any evidence seized can be admitted at trial. CA should follow this??
 

justalayman

Senior Member
if they were given notice the warrant was not applicable to the OP's house prior to the search, I do not see how they could have a good faith belief it was valid.

Would not Leon apply to a warrant that appears to be valid but is later found to be defective?
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
a mistake? police are suppose to protect and serve,they have a responsibility to proof read a warrant,and if errors are noticed they have the responsibility to correct them
Okay, nice political position, but again I ask, did a valid search warrant exist?

there is a valid warrant now,
Assuming it was valid at the time of the service, then you have little ground to stand on for suppression of the evidence. Failing to present you with a copy at the time of service is not - by itself - sufficient to cause the suppression of any evidence.

its absurd that the police come to my home provide me with a warrant for a hispanic male,wrong address,and wrong city and say here is the warrant with nothing at all to do with me,and this warrant allows us to search this residence.how is this legal?at that moment the police should have made a call,or went and got the valid one with my name on it.
They COULD have done that, but then it would also have given you time to ditch the evidence they were there to seize.

Once more, if a valid search warrant existed then the search was almost certainly lawful even if you were not immediately presented with a copy. Your recourse is, of course, to move for a suppression of any evidence in the short run (not likely to succeed, but if it is all you got, then what the heck ...). In the long run you can advocate in Sacramento for a change of the law to allow for suppression if the valid warrant is not present at the time and location of service.

And, again, if NO valid warrant existed anywhere at the time of the search, then you stand a good chance of having the evidence suppressed. However, from what you write they DID have a valid warrant, it was just not in their possession. If so, you are swimming up stream.
 

BOR

Senior Member
if they were given notice the warrant was not applicable to the OP's house prior to the search, I do not see how they could have a good faith belief it was valid.

Would not Leon apply to a warrant that appears to be valid but is later found to be defective?
Leon may be broader in scope, but it was a general example of defective SW's.

I surmise alot of suspects say it is the wrong address, so and so does not live here, etc.

If they simply served it at the wrong address, but in good faith, they should be protected as far as any evidence addmission later.

The address may have actually been, 110, but they served it at 116, or it was a typo, etc.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Or, they could have grabbed the wrong document from the desk before they left the station, leaving the perfectly valid one on the desk. ;) In that case, was the search invalid? I think not.
 

assassin

Junior Member
its hard to swallow the replies i have gotten,its all about freedom,constitution,does anyone realize how much bloodshwed has bee lost because people have died protecting our rights,not to have the government trample all over hem and take them away?

yes now there is a valid warrant

was there a valid warrant at he time of search?consider the facts

they came here with a warrant that had nothing to do with me
they were aware of this before going into home
there was no one in the residence and they knew it
so there was no chance of destroying evidense
im not debating if they need a warrant present

what im trying to poit out is this,if police come and search my residence the law states they dont need a warrant present,there are circumstanceslike
if there is a chance evidence will be destroyed,
is there a threat to lthe officers life
is the person in the house dangerous

none of these apply i am the only one that lives at my residence
i was in my car downstairs from my apartment
they presented a warrant with wrong name.address and city
this means they believed they had a valid search warrant with them or they would not have provided me with one.
they in fact were under the belief they had a valid warrant with them or they would not have provided me with one.
therefore since they believed they had one with them because they presented one,knowing that by mistake or whatever they could not provide or produce one.

is it not commonsence will tell someone that if they present a search warrant to someone,be it the wrong one they have the obligation to present the valid one?

its like this the old saying the cards have been brought to the table
or im calling you on your bluff
or heres the document prove it to be valid

once an officer obligates himself by providing me with a warrant,it has to be one with either my name,address,or city it had none of that

and once he provides me with a document(search warrant)it is his responsibility to provide me with what is the valid one from the get go


back to the reasoning

if i buy a air conditioner from a store and go to return it or lets say execute it will i need to have a valid copy of my sales reciept? yes/can i return it without a reciept=no / can i return the air conditioner with a reciept for jack in the box=no
so even if i had a valid reciept for the air conditioner and plan to execute my sales reciept to get my refund,can i tell the salesman sir this is my reciept its for jack in the box but i want my refund for my air conditioner and i will get it
they would tell me sorry sir if you have a valid reciept at home you must bring that with you,and this reciept for jack in the box you are executing here doesnt give you authority or grounds for a refund its invalid on its face

now how is it that even returning a damn appliance requires a valid reciept to get something,police executing a warrant lacking validity on its face

if the police execute a warrant im pin pointing out providing me with one lacking my name address and city,the police aware its errors makes this a legal search


now lets talk about beyond a reasonable doubt
is there a resaoonable doubt the police had a valid warrant at the time=absolutely

they provided one the wrong one,they were assuming they had a valid one with them at the time,when i told them i did not consent to a search without a valid warrant they couldnt,didnt,and failed to show onesince i am the only one residing at my residence,since i was not even im my house,since they had my place under survellance and knew no evidence would be desroyed,all they had to do was make one call and get a copy a the warrant here
or provide me with one som,ehow

does this prove there was no valid warrant at the time of search beyond a reasonable doubt=absolutely

i would think that if officers present a warrant describing a hispanic male and im white,wrong address and city,they kew this before even getting on the stairs to go in my apartment,is it not reasonable to get a warrant with my name address and city if there was a valid one at the ime of search?of course thats reasonable

if i were a police officer executing a search warrant i would have enough common sense and enough training,and enough proffesionalism being that when i took this job as police man i swore as my duty to uphold the constitution of the us and protect peoples rights.

being that my sworn duties are that of i can not or will not execute a search warrant when the individual i provide the warrant to tells me and i see clearly it lacks his correct name,address and city.and if i continued to execute a warrant showing clearly important errors and issues when the individual is already secure downstairs and no immediate threat was evident,would show my lack and disregard to an individuals rights,the 4th amendment etc... its my duty to serve and protect that means protecting my rights to an unreasonable search

the kicker,i mean seriously all the police had to do was make one call amnd have a warrant a valid one brought,once again i am not debating they dont need one at the time of search but i am debating since they did provide me one it was invalid on its face.is that so hard to understand?they obligated themselves to provide me witha a valid warrant because they put a warrant a wrong one in my hand,people say hey no big deal,its a mistake,its a legal search.crap.maxims of law that can not be argued

The contents of a California search warrant must be described with reasonable particularity.32 Simply put, "reasonable particularity" means that the warrant should be so clear that nothing is left to the officer's discretion when executing it.33 This applies to both (1) the place to be searched, and (2) the person/property to be seized.34

This means that a search warrant must be executed according to the exact details contained in the warrant35 -- warrants that are clear in their descriptions will be upheld and those that unduly vague will not.

Federal Rules: According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, a copy of the document that describes the triggering conditions (i.e., the warrant itself, the affidavit, or any other attachments) must be presented to the lawful occupants (along with a copy of the warrant) upon the execution of the warrant. Failing to do so will invalidate the anticipatory search warrant as a Fourth Amendment violation. (United States v. Grubbs (9th Cir. 2004) 377 F.3rd 1072, as amended at 389 F.3rd 1306.)


if i provide a warrant that lacks the individuals name address and city its my duty to correct my mistake
 
Last edited:

cyjeff

Senior Member
Lots of words.

None to answer the question... What did they find?

There was a warrant. you lose.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
assassin;2554322]its hard to swallow the replies i have gotten,its all about freedom,constitution,does anyone realize how much bloodshwed has bee lost because people have died protecting our rights,not to have the government trample all over hem and take them away?
let me guess: you are 21 years old. Never been in the military and have no relatives or friends in the military.

yes now there is a valid warrant
then you lose

was there a valid warrant at he time of search?consider the facts
there will be a date and time on the warrant for when the judge signed it. Check it out.



what im trying to poit out is this,if police come and search my residence the law states they dont need a warrant present,there are circumstanceslike
if there is a chance evidence will be destroyed,
is there a threat to lthe officers life
is the person in the house dangerous
those are called exigent circumstances and since there was a warrant, are irrelevant


they in fact were under the belief they had a valid warrant with them or they would not have provided me with one.
therefore since they believed they had one with them because they presented one,knowing that by mistake or whatever they could not provide or produce one.
and that is the time their faces got red with embarrassment when they realized they left the warrant to search for your drugs back at the station house. Dang, that must really suck when that happens. Good thing they didn't have to have it on their person.

is it not commonsence will tell someone that if they present a search warrant to someone,be it the wrong one they have the obligation to present the valid one?
this is where you are misunderstanding the law. There has to have been a search warrant issued not that they have to be able to wave it in your face.



once an officer obligates himself by providing me with a warrant,it has to be one with either my name,address,or city it had none of that
see previous answer

and once he provides me with a document(search warrant)it is his responsibility to provide me with what is the valid one from the get go
see previous answer




if i buy a air conditioner from a store and go to return it or lets say execute it will i need to have a valid copy of my sales reciept? yes
not necessarily. I have returned many things without a receipt.

/can i return it without a reciept=no
/maybe not you but I have

can i return the air conditioner with a reciept for jack in the box=no
I bet you mean a receipt from jack in the box
and the answer would it would be the merchants discretion

so even if i had a valid reciept for the air conditioner and plan to execute my sales reciept to get my refund,can i tell the salesman sir this is my reciept its for jack in the box but i want my refund for my air conditioner and i will get it
they would tell me sorry sir if you have a valid reciept at home you must bring that with you,and this reciept for jack in the box you are executing here doesnt give you authority or grounds for a refund its invalid on its face
wow, you must look deceptive or something. I have returned so many things without receipts.

now how is it that even returning a damn appliance requires a valid reciept to get something,police executing a warrant lacking validity on its face
well, very simple. The law does not control whether a merchant must allow you to return merchandise and as such, the cannot control what a merchant requires you to have to be able to return the merchandise

if the police execute a warrant im pin pointing out providing me with one lacking my name address and city,the police aware its errors makes this a legal search
fine and if there wasn't a valid warrant somewhere, then have your attorney file a motion to suppress whatever evidence was found in your house


now lets talk about beyond a reasonable doubt
is there a resaoonable doubt the police had a valid warrant at the time=absolutely
check the time on the correct warrant.

they provided one the wrong one,they were assuming they had a valid one with them at the time,when i told them i did not consent to a search without a valid warrant they couldnt,didnt,and failed to show onesince i am the only one residing at my residence,since i was not even im my house,since they had my place under survellance and knew no evidence would be desroyed,all they had to do was make one call and get a copy a the warrant here
or provide me with one som,ehow
but it does not change the fact they did not have to do that.

does this prove there was no valid warrant at the time of search beyond a reasonable doubt=absolutely
It doesn't prove squat other than they were not going to cave into your demands.

i would think that if officers present a warrant describing a hispanic male and im white,wrong address and city,they kew this before even getting on the stairs to go in my apartment,is it not reasonable to get a warrant with my name address and city if there was a valid one at the ime of search?of course thats reasonable
well, since the warrant they had you claim was not for you or your address, then what is on the warrant they showed you is really irrelevant.

if i were a police officer executing a search warrant i would have enough common sense and enough training,and enough proffesionalism being that when i took this job as police man i swore as my duty to uphold the constitution of the us and protect peoples rights.
if there was a valid warrant, your rights were upheld.

being that my sworn duties are that of i can not or will not execute a search warrant when the individual i provide the warrant to tells me and i see clearly it lacks his correct name,address and city.and if i continued to execute a warrant showing clearly important errors and issues when the individual is already secure downstairs and no immediate threat was evident,would show my lack and disregard to an individuals rights,the 4th amendment etc... its my duty to serve and protect that means protecting my rights to an unreasonable search
How does it feel to simply be wrong all the time?

the kicker,i mean seriously all the police had to do was make one call amnd have a warrant a valid one brought,
No, they didn't have to do that as you have seen. They could have done that but they didn't have to.

once again i am not debating they dont need one at the time of search but i am debating since they did provide me one it was invalid on its face.is that so hard to understand?they obligated themselves to provide me witha a valid warrant because they put a warrant a wrong one in my hand,people say hey no big deal,its a mistake,its a legal search.crap.maxims of law that can not be argued
as long as there was a valid warrant at the time of the search, that is all that matters, They were not obligated to provide you with squat.

The contents of a California search warrant must be described with reasonable particularity.32 Simply put, "reasonable particularity" means that the warrant should be so clear that nothing is left to the officer's discretion when executing it.33 This applies to both (1) the place to be searched, and (2) the person/property to be seized.34
and when you read the correct warrant, if it does not have those elements on it, then motion to suppress the evidence they found.

This means that a search warrant must be executed according to the exact details contained in the warrant35 -- warrants that are clear in their descriptions will be upheld and those that unduly vague will not.
and when you see the correct warrant, make sure they did execute it as written. That is your right.

Federal Rules: According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, a copy of the document that describes the triggering conditions (i.e., the warrant itself, the affidavit, or any other attachments) must be presented to the lawful occupants (along with a copy of the warrant) upon the execution of the warrant. Failing to do so will invalidate the anticipatory search warrant as a Fourth Amendment violation. (United States v. Grubbs (9th Cir. 2004) 377 F.3rd 1072, as amended at 389 F.3rd 1306.)
that deals with anticipatory warrants. Was yours issued in anticipation of a triggering event? If not, then that case law is not applicable.


if i provide a warrant that lacks the individuals name address and city its my duty to correct my mistake
then don't do that.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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