Challenging Illegal Search and Seizure in Federal and State Appeals

When the police illegally search your person, vehicle, or home and seize evidence used against you in a criminal prosecution, you may have the right to challenge the admission of that evidence at a criminal trial by filing a motion to suppress or objecting at trial. If the trial court rules against your motion or objection, you can appeal the denial of your challenge to state or federal appellate courts to seek relief from a conviction after sentencing.

Which Amendment Protects Us from Illegal Searches and Seizures?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures by law enforcement or other government officials or agents. Specifically, the amendment states that the government may not violate people’s freedom from an unreasonable search of their person, home, papers, or effects. The amendment further prohibits courts from issuing search warrants unless they find probable cause for the search, supported by an oath or affirmation of the investigator applying for the warrant. A warrant application also must describe the places law enforcement agents wish to search and the people or things they want to seize.

What Is an Illegal Search and Seizure?

An illegal search and seizure may occur when police search a place and seize evidence in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights. Common examples of illegal search and seizure include:

• Searching a vehicle during a traffic stop without articulable facts to establish probable cause or without the driver’s or owner’s consent
• Entering a residence or place of business without a search warrant or an owner’s/responsible occupant’s consent
• Seizing property unrelated to a crime during a search
• Searching areas not authorized by the warrant
• Seizing items not described in the warrant, such as seizing electronic devices when the warrant only authorized the seizure of weapons

When Is a Warrant Required Before a Search and Seizure?

The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement means that law enforcement officials must obtain a warrant to search any area where a suspect may have a reasonable expectation of privacy. To obtain a search warrant, law enforcement officers must demonstrate to a judge that they have probable cause to believe that the place(s) they wish to search contains evidence of a crime.

Establishing probable cause requires a warrant affidavit that states specific, articulable facts that support the investigating officer’s belief that the subject of the search will contain criminal evidence, such as testimony from reliable informants, observations made during police surveillance, or undercover interactions with the target of the search.

What Types of Evidence Can Be Gathered During a Search and Seizure?

Depending on the places or items that police search, a search warrant or one of the exceptions to the search warrant may permit police to seize various types of evidence during a search, such as:

• Weapons
• Drugs/controlled substances
• Stolen property
• Clothing
• Written documents, such as contracts, financial records, or letters
• Forensic evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints
• Electronic devices like computers, tablets, external hard drives, and cell phones
• Data from electronic devices

What Are Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement?

Courts have recognized multiple exceptions to the warrant requirement that permit police officers to conduct a search that complies with the Fourth Amendment protections without obtaining a search or arrest warrant from a court. Some of the most frequently cited exceptions to the warrant requirement include:

• Consent – The Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant or to have probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime to search a place when they receive consent from the person who owns or controls the space (such as the owner or driver of a vehicle or the owner or adult occupant of a residence).
• Plain View – The plain view doctrine allows police to seize contraband or evidence of a crime if officers can view the item from a place where the Fourth Amendment allows the officers to stand, and the officers can immediately ascertain the contraband or criminal nature of the item.
• Weapons Pat-Down – During investigatory detention, police may conduct a pat-down search of a detainee for weapons if officers have articulable facts supporting a belief that the detainee may have a weapon. The weapons pat-down exception protects the officers’ safety during an investigatory detention with a potentially armed individual.
• Searches Incident to Arrest – When police arrest an individual, they may search the individual’s pockets or conduct a pat-down (or, in some circumstances, a strip search) to search the individual for contraband they cannot bring into a police station or jail or weapons the arrestee might use against the police or other detainees.
• Automobile Exception – The automobile exception allows police to search a vehicle if officers have probable cause, based on articulable facts, that it contains evidence of a crime when waiting to obtain a warrant risks loss or destruction of the evidence due to the inherent mobility of an automobile.
• Exigent Circumstances – The exigent circumstances doctrine recognizes that some situations may make it impractical for police to stop and apply for a search warrant from a court, such as when pausing police activity might put officers’ or the public’s lives in danger or when waiting for the issuance of a search warrants risks allowing individuals to conceal, carry away, or destroy criminal evidence. Common exceptions that rely on the exigent circumstances doctrine include the community caretaking exception (where police may enter private premises to render aid to someone who may require assistance) or the hot pursuit doctrine (where police can continue an active pursuit of a suspect into private property).

How Are Warrantless Searches Challenged?

When the police search without a warrant based on probable cause, a defendant may contest the admissibility of evidence obtained from the search (including evidence that led to later searches) by filing a motion to suppress evidence. The exclusionary rule states that prosecutors may not use evidence obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment. When a trial court finds that the prosecution wants to introduce evidence obtained through an unlawful search, it may order suppression of the evidence and bar its use at trial.

However, when trial courts decline to suppress illegally obtained evidence after a defendant moves to suppress the evidence or objects to its admission at trial, the defendant may have grounds to appeal illegal search and seizure cases to appellate state and federal courts, which may overturn the defendant’s conviction upon finding that investigators violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Contact an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer If Your Constitutional Rights Were Violated

After the police subject you to an unreasonable search and seizure, you need experienced legal guidance and advocacy to protect your rights and interests. Contact Broden & Mickelsen, LLP today for a confidential consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney to learn more about what happens in a criminal case when the police violate the Fourth Amendment.