Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: ilegal search

That is an illegal search. Did they seize anything? If so, those items would be inadmissible. Are you being charged with crime? Please contact our office at 310/277-1707 to discuss your legal options.

Re: ilegal search

The general rule is that warrantless searches are illegal. However, there are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement. Rather than go into the 6-week discourse on the exceptions, it would make more sense for you to explain a bit more of the ostensible reasons for the search. The truth is, most drug cases that are won are won on grounds of illegal searches and seizures. In other cases this is equally important as proof of the illegality results in the suppression of all evidence obtained as a result of the illegal search/seizure. In many cases, the police overstep their bounds in obtaining the evidence. While it is really necessary to have a bit more information from you on the search, to give you a very general idea, here are some possible exceptions to the warrant requirement:

(1) SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST:

Police may search the area where an arrestee is arrested without a warrant if engaged in a lawful arrest of that person.

(2)EFFERVESCENT EVIDENCE

Where police have probable cause to believe evidence will be destroyed if they take the time to get a warrant, they are excused from getting one.

(3)CONSENT (The BIGGIE)

Where police come knocking at the door and "ask" if they can come in and are let in, they may be deemed to have been given consent to search. Consent obviates the need for any warrant.

(4) PLAIN VIEW

If police are lawfully positioned and see, in plain view, contraband, they may seize it.

Usually in a case as you describe (in a motel), police knock on the door; the occupant opens it, and the police will claim either that the occupant consented to their entry, or that upon the occupant's opening the door (police lawfully positioned), the police officer smelled or saw contraband which led to another way around the warrant -- i.e., to seize the contraband and pursuant to the lawful arrest of the occupant for possession thereof.

A person who is the guest of an occupant of a motel room will have an additional hurdle in making the argument against a warrantless search: standing. One must have a reasonable expectation of privacy before (s)he can assert a Fourth Amendment violation (which this is). However, this can fairly easily be shown in the motel room. Very generally speaking, a right to exclude others from the place will show a reasonable expectation of privacy therein.

These are very generalized answers to a very complicated issue. An experienced and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney is needed to analyze all of the facts of your particular case in light of the critically specific and ever-changing law on this subject. It's importance cannot be overstated. I suggest you consult in person with a criminal defense attorney (possible more than one) or call me or email me directly to discuss further. Good luck!

Kindest regards,

JACQUELINE GOODMAN RUBIO

Attorney at Law

(714)879-5770

[email protected]

Re: ilegal search

The general rule is that warrantless searches are illegal. However, there are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement. Rather than go into the 6-week discourse on the exceptions, it would make more sense for you to explain a bit more of the reasons for the search. The truth is, most drug cases that are won are won on grounds of illegal searches and seizures. In many cases, the police overstep their bounds in obtaining the evidence. While it is really necessary to have a bit more information from you on the search, to give you a very general idea, here are some possible exceptions to the warrant requirement:

(1) SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST:

Police may search the area where an arrestee is arrested without a warrant if engaged in a lawful arrest of that person.

(2)EFFERVESCENT EVIDENCE

Where police have probable cause to believe evidence will be destroyed if they take the time to get a warrant, they are excused from getting one.

(3)CONSENT (The BIGGIE)

Where police come knocking at the door and "ask" if they can come in and are let in, they may be deemed to have been given consent to search. Consent obviates the need for any warrant.

(4) PLAIN VIEW

If police are lawfully positioned and see, in plain view, contraband, they may seize it.

Usually in a case as you describe (in a motel), police knock on the door; the occupant opens it, and the police will claim either that the occupant consented to their entry, or that upon the occupant's opening the door (police lawfully positioned), the police officer smelled or saw contraband which led to another way around the warrant -- i.e., to seize the contraband and pursuant to the lawful arrest of the occupant for possession thereof.

A person who is the guest of an occupant of a motel room will have an additional hurdle in making the argument against a warrantless search: standing. One must have a reasonable expectation of privacy before (s)he can assert a Fourth Amendment violation (which this is). However, this can fairly easily be shown in the motel room. Very generally speaking, a right to exclude others from the place will show a reasonable expectation of privacy therein.

These are very generalized answers to a very complicated issue. An experienced and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney is needed to analyze all of the facts of your particular case in light of the critically specific and ever-changing law on this subject. It's importance cannot be overstated. I suggest you consult in person with a criminal defense attorney (possible more than one) or call me or email me directly to discuss further. Good luck!

Kindest regards,

JACQUELINE GOODMAN RUBIO

Attorney at Law

(714)879-5770

[email protected]