Walk-thru .vs. Search Warrant

[inquiringmind]

Hi,

Question pertaining to California law and procedures to search a home.

A friend voluntarily allowed police officers into her and her boyfriends home, at the "insistance" and high pressure tactics of the officers looking for one of their friends. This "friend" had allegedgly used their address as his place of residency on his California ID, AND, on a form required to be filled out to purchase a chemical known to be used to manufacture methamphetimine.

This friend they were in search of was their reason for wanting to do the "walk-thru". No other purpose of wanting in the door was addressed.

After my friend insisted he was not there, and had not lived there...They told my friend they only wanted to verify he was not in their home and not living with them. My friends had not seen this "friend" of theirs for a year or more. Nor did or does he live there. With this in mind, and the knowledge she was NOT hiding him....she reluctently and under their threats of continued harrassments, and to prove she wasn't "lying"....told them to go ahead with the walk-thru of their tiny apartment.

Of course, he was not there....however, upon one of the officers "focused man-hunt", some pot was seen sitting on a dresser and it turned in to a free for all....ran-sack of her entire apartment. Including arrests of her, her boyfriend, and a friend who happened to come to the door during the invasion who was searched and found to have drug paraphenalia in his possession as well.

After all was said AND done...THEY were arrested on possession charges for meth and pot. Niether has any prior arrest records or convictions of any kind.

Have they been done wrong??? (Not to ignore their reasons for arrest). Does it appear with what I am able to give you here....the police were, geez, got just a wee-bit off focus here? I know with a search warrant it is a very outlined search for "specifics". Shouldn't this search been limited to ONLY what they told my friend they were there for?? Regardless of the visible pot??

I appreciate ANY and all feedback, and understand not only you but "I" may not have all the specifics......thanks

 

[lawrat]

I am a law school graduate. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.


Okay, first and foremost, NEVER and I mean NEVER let an officer into your home without a search warrant that is dated and limited in scope and place of search.

Second, what your friends did, no matter how pursuasive the police were, was CONSENT TO POLICE ENTRY INTO THEIR HOME TO SEARCH FOR THIS PERSON. That means, the police were allowed to walk through the house looking for a person.

That meant, everything was pretty much fair game to them. Because they found drugs and drug paraphanalia in "PLAIN VIEW", that gave them an "EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT REQUIREMENT" and thus gave them enough probable cause to do a more indepth search. Because your friends were the owners and occupants of that particular residence, they were charged.

SO, they ARE GUILTY. If they don't have past criminal history or drug related dependency confinements (ie rehab records), then it will be up to a great criminial law attorney to defend them and get a plea bargain.

Try attorneypages.com.

Hope this helps.

 

[inquiringminds]

Thanks Lawrat!!

Not good news.....but, it will be the first of any problems with the law. Hopefully, THE LAST, and lesson learned!! Thank you none-the-less.

The time you and the others volunteer here on this board is highly commendable!! Ya'll should take a bow! The internet is all about sharing information and you, IAAL, Tracey, and any others I may, (unforgiveably) be over-looking.....deserve a bit more than just simple thanks! So, I give you a paragraph and a hearty pat on the back!! lol

Take Care....keep up the information hiways!!

 

[Tracey]

Good analysis Lawrat. Unless your friends can put forth a credible argument that she didn't want to consent & police "overbore her will to resist," the consent was valid. The guy who showed up during the search may have a better argument. Police had no probable cause as to him, so his issue is whether police were entitled to pat him down for weapons & whether they exceeded the scope of a pat-down before finding the paraphernalia.


Let this be a lesson to all members: NEVER consent to a search! (Then, after you refuse consent, shut the door and destroy any evidence before cops return with a warrant!!)

------------------
This is not legal advice and you are not my client. Double check everything with your own attorney and your state's laws.