• 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.

4th amendment

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

CdwJava

Senior Member
The issue of your consent may be of limited effect if they were looking for a tenant who was on Probation. Anyplace that the tenant had access to (which is, arguably, pretty much the entire house) they could search. Your private bedroom might be iffy, but, if the door is not locked and he had access to it at anytime, even that space may not be secure from a search pursuant to a 4th waiver. When confronted with a search such as this, it is commonplace to seek consent even if consent is not legally necessary. Not knowing the details, I cannot say whether consent was necessary or not.

Also, if they actually broke anything, you can make a claim to the agency for any damages. WHAT did they actually break?
 


justalayman

Senior Member
Based on what the OP said, there was a lot legal pressure applied, perhaps, but there was no coercion in getting the OP to sign the consent.
If breaking the stuff was used as an effort to get the op to sign, it is coercion

after 30 to 40 mins of no i not signing to don't break more shit and tauting. they been in all the rooms thur shit. so what else i have to lose. stop breaking my stuff.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
If breaking the stuff was used as an effort to get the op to sign, it is coercion
The cops tend to break stuff when doing searches. Nothing in the OP's narrative says that the cops told the OP they'd break his stuff if he didn't sign the consent or that the breakage would stop if he did. I suspect that was simply an assumption by the OP.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I've been on ... hundreds? ..... of Probation and parole searches, and I can probably count on two hands the number of things I have broken - and all of those were doors, windows, or locked containers that we had a right to enter and were refused. That makes me wonder what this whole breaking things was about. Or, if anything was actually broken.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
That isn't true. Not as a categorical statement about cops in general. There may be, and probably are, some officers or former officers that do that, but most police are generally pretty respectful of people's property and take care not to damage it.

TD
Yeah, management tends to take a dim view of having to pay out claims that were due to an officer's negligence or vindictive behavior.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
The report doesn't seem to help you any. It sounds as if even your attorney does not believe they can challenge the consent. But, you are free to ask your attorney to attempt to fight it.
 
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Fourth Amendment case law deals with three main issues: what government activities are "searches" and "seizures," what constitutes probable cause to conduct searches and seizures, and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed. Early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to physical intrusion of property or persons, but with Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court held that its protections extend to intrusions on the privacy of individuals as well as to physical locations. A warrant is needed for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has carved out a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.
The exclusionary rule is one way the amendment is enforced. Established in Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree", unless it inevitably would have been discovered by legal means.
The Fourth Amendment was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government, and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America. The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-fourths of the states had ratified it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jeffersonannounced that it was officially part of the Constitution.
Because the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to state or local governments, and federal criminal investigations were less common in the first century of the nation's history, there is little significant case law for the Fourth Amendment before the 20th century. The amendment was held to apply to state and local governments in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Contents
 
THEY DID NOT ARREST ME THAT DAY , THE ONLY THING THEY SHOW ME WERE WEIGHTS AND BLACK BAG . NOTHING ELSE. I FOUND OUT ABOUT THE CHARAGES THUR THE MAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.The Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution: The Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” (Emphasis added) . WHAT STORY DO YOU BELIEVE. 30 TO 40 MINS TOOK PLACE. BEFORE I NOT WILLING SIGNING CONSENT. SOMEBODY GAVE THEM A BIG FISH STORY AND I AM GETTING PUNISH FOR WHATS NOT MINE. SET UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!THERE IS A LOT OF BS IN IT.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Once again, your attorney can seek to have any evidence suppressed but that will require proving that you were coerced into giving your consent and that the evidence was not otherwise discovered lawfully. The fact that you had at least one tenant/resident who was subject to 4th waiver searches could have resulted in the same end result ... depending on the circumstances.

So, what does your attorney have to say on the matter?
 
Sponsored Ad

Top