Is search of suspect's house automatically permitted if arrest is elsewhere?

[Brian]

If a person is arrested on the street (at a traffic stop, for example), are
the police automatically permitted to search his house, or do they need to
get a court warrant to do so, which the court has the discretion to grant or
not?

[s***@schenectady.net]

Post by Brian
If a person is arrested on the street (at a traffic stop, for example), are
the police automatically permitted to search his house, or do they need to
get a court warrant to do so, which the court has the discretion to grant or
not?

As a preliminary matter preliminarily, note that you have not
said that the arrest on the street was lawful. Therefore, even if
there was otherwise some reason to claim that there constitutionally
may be a search that is incident to a lawful arrest, one cannot tell
from what you say whether that predicate of lawfulness was present for
that person.

However, assuming that the on the street arrest was lawful,
that does not mean that the police are constitutionally allowed to
search the person's house if you mean by automatically that there are
not other facts necessitating or justifying the search beyond the
arrest itself.

In other words, it is constitutional to search a person
incident to a lawful even if warrantless search. But whether that
search lawfully beyond a search of the person depends on additional
factors.

The two most common such factors are what are called exigent
circumstances, for example that the police have a good fact based
faith reason to believe there is an emergency need for a further
search. An example might be a kidnapping or hostage situation. An
additional sometimes present reason is the so-called hot pursuit
situation, for example that person tries to escape from lawful custody
by running into his house with the police then following. A third
scenario, which is not constitutional but which is very common, is the
phony set up which, though phony, a judge might pretend to believe if
these issues were litigated, for example when the police could and
given the relevant facts should arrest on the street but when they
instead follow the person until he is entering his house and then
arrest him then search incident to that arrest.

But also note that the facts you post are incomplete in
connection with each of these alternatives since you do not say among
other things how far from the on the street arrest the arrested
person's house is. For example, whereas his house is in Truro, Mass.,
was he arrested on the street in Boston, Mass., 120 miles away?

[Brian]

Post by s***@schenectady.net

Post by Brian
If a person is arrested on the street (at a traffic stop, for example), are
the police automatically permitted to search his house, or do they need to
get a court warrant to do so, which the court has the discretion to grant or
not?

As a preliminary matter preliminarily, note that you have not
said that the arrest on the street was lawful. Therefore, even if
there was otherwise some reason to claim that there constitutionally
may be a search that is incident to a lawful arrest, one cannot tell
from what you say whether that predicate of lawfulness was present for
that person.
However, assuming that the on the street arrest was lawful,
that does not mean that the police are constitutionally allowed to
search the person's house if you mean by automatically that there are
not other facts necessitating or justifying the search beyond the
arrest itself.

That was what I was concerned with. Assuming the arrest outside the house
is "lawful," what you're saying is that that does not automatically give the
police authority to search the person's house. But it seems to me that the
police could always come up with some excuse to justify a possible linkage
of the arrest to what might be in the person's house, or is this narrowly
defined by law? For example, if a person is found with illegal drugs, can
the police search his house looking for more drugs. I put "lawful" in quotes
because it seems to me that can also be interpreted by the police to suit
them. For example, it's legal to transport a gun unloaded and packaged from
a person's home to a target range. But if the police find a gun in a
person's car, how can he prove that he was on his way to a target rang?.
Could the police use that as an excuse to arrest him and search his house?
Theoretically it seems not to me, but the police have arrested many people
for trivial technical violations of the gun laws in recenr years.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
In other words, it is constitutional to search a person
incident to a lawful even if warrantless search. But whether that
search lawfully beyond a search of the person depends on additional
factors.
The two most common such factors are what are called exigent
circumstances, for example that the police have a good fact based
faith reason to believe there is an emergency need for a further
search. An example might be a kidnapping or hostage situation. An
additional sometimes present reason is the so-called hot pursuit
situation, for example that person tries to escape from lawful custody
by running into his house with the police then following. A third
scenario, which is not constitutional but which is very common, is the
phony set up which, though phony, a judge might pretend to believe if
these issues were litigated, for example when the police could and
given the relevant facts should arrest on the street but when they
instead follow the person until he is entering his house and then
arrest him then search incident to that arrest.

Thanks. Yes, that was what I was concerned with also, since the police often
make up excuses for otherwise unconstitutional actions.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
But also note that the facts you post are incomplete in
connection with each of these alternatives since you do not say among
other things how far from the on the street arrest the arrested
person's house is. For example, whereas his house is in Truro, Mass.,
was he arrested on the street in Boston, Mass., 120 miles away?

[richard]

Post by Brian

Post by s***@schenectady.net

Post by Brian
If a person is arrested on the street (at a traffic stop, for example), are
the police automatically permitted to search his house, or do they need to
get a court warrant to do so, which the court has the discretion to grant or
not?

As a preliminary matter preliminarily, note that you have not
said that the arrest on the street was lawful. Therefore, even if
there was otherwise some reason to claim that there constitutionally
may be a search that is incident to a lawful arrest, one cannot tell
from what you say whether that predicate of lawfulness was present for
that person.
However, assuming that the on the street arrest was lawful,
that does not mean that the police are constitutionally allowed to
search the person's house if you mean by automatically that there are
not other facts necessitating or justifying the search beyond the
arrest itself.

That was what I was concerned with. Assuming the arrest outside the house
is "lawful," what you're saying is that that does not automatically give the
police authority to search the person's house. But it seems to me that the
police could always come up with some excuse to justify a possible linkage
of the arrest to what might be in the person's house, or is this narrowly
defined by law? For example, if a person is found with illegal drugs, can
the police search his house looking for more drugs. I put "lawful" in quotes
because it seems to me that can also be interpreted by the police to suit
them. For example, it's legal to transport a gun unloaded and packaged from
a person's home to a target range. But if the police find a gun in a
person's car, how can he prove that he was on his way to a target rang?.
Could the police use that as an excuse to arrest him and search his house?
Theoretically it seems not to me, but the police have arrested many people
for trivial technical violations of the gun laws in recenr years.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
In other words, it is constitutional to search a person
incident to a lawful even if warrantless search. But whether that
search lawfully beyond a search of the person depends on additional
factors.
The two most common such factors are what are called exigent
circumstances, for example that the police have a good fact based
faith reason to believe there is an emergency need for a further
search. An example might be a kidnapping or hostage situation. An
additional sometimes present reason is the so-called hot pursuit
situation, for example that person tries to escape from lawful custody
by running into his house with the police then following. A third
scenario, which is not constitutional but which is very common, is the
phony set up which, though phony, a judge might pretend to believe if
these issues were litigated, for example when the police could and
given the relevant facts should arrest on the street but when they
instead follow the person until he is entering his house and then
arrest him then search incident to that arrest.

Thanks. Yes, that was what I was concerned with also, since the police often
make up excuses for otherwise unconstitutional actions.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
But also note that the facts you post are incomplete in
connection with each of these alternatives since you do not say among
other things how far from the on the street arrest the arrested
person's house is. For example, whereas his house is in Truro, Mass.,
was he arrested on the street in Boston, Mass., 120 miles away?

Note that when a person is arrested inside a house, this does not give
officers the right to search the house. However, should the officers
discover evidence of a crime in plain view, then a search of the house for
other evidence of a crime is warranted.

Let's say John Doe was arrested in his home for an outstanding traffic
warrant. While in the house, the cops decide to have a look around. In the
bedroom closet they find a shotgun. In the refrigerator they find what they
believe to be illegal narcotics.
This would be an unreasonable search and the evidence found would be
dismissed and returned.

[Bill Graham]

Post by richard

Post by Brian

Post by s***@schenectady.net

Post by Brian
If a person is arrested on the street (at a traffic stop, for example), are
the police automatically permitted to search his house, or do they
need to get a court warrant to do so, which the court has the
discretion to grant or
not?

As a preliminary matter preliminarily, note that you have not
said that the arrest on the street was lawful. Therefore, even if
there was otherwise some reason to claim that there constitutionally
may be a search that is incident to a lawful arrest, one cannot tell
from what you say whether that predicate of lawfulness was present
for that person.
However, assuming that the on the street arrest was lawful,
that does not mean that the police are constitutionally allowed to
search the person's house if you mean by automatically that there
are not other facts necessitating or justifying the search beyond
the arrest itself.

That was what I was concerned with. Assuming the arrest outside the
house is "lawful," what you're saying is that that does not
automatically give the police authority to search the person's
house. But it seems to me that the police could always come up with
some excuse to justify a possible linkage of the arrest to what
might be in the person's house, or is this narrowly defined by law?
For example, if a person is found with illegal drugs, can the police
search his house looking for more drugs. I put "lawful" in quotes
because it seems to me that can also be interpreted by the police to
suit them. For example, it's legal to transport a gun unloaded and
packaged from a person's home to a target range. But if the police
find a gun in a person's car, how can he prove that he was on his
way to a target rang?. Could the police use that as an excuse to
arrest him and search his house? Theoretically it seems not to me,
but the police have arrested many people for trivial technical
violations of the gun laws in recenr years.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
In other words, it is constitutional to search a person
incident to a lawful even if warrantless search. But whether that
search lawfully beyond a search of the person depends on additional
factors.
The two most common such factors are what are called exigent
circumstances, for example that the police have a good fact based
faith reason to believe there is an emergency need for a further
search. An example might be a kidnapping or hostage situation. An
additional sometimes present reason is the so-called hot pursuit
situation, for example that person tries to escape from lawful
custody by running into his house with the police then following. A
third scenario, which is not constitutional but which is very
common, is the phony set up which, though phony, a judge might
pretend to believe if these issues were litigated, for example when
the police could and given the relevant facts should arrest on the
street but when they instead follow the person until he is entering
his house and then arrest him then search incident to that arrest.

Thanks. Yes, that was what I was concerned with also, since the
police often make up excuses for otherwise unconstitutional actions.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
But also note that the facts you post are incomplete in
connection with each of these alternatives since you do not say
among other things how far from the on the street arrest the
arrested person's house is. For example, whereas his house is in
Truro, Mass., was he arrested on the street in Boston, Mass., 120
miles away?

Note that when a person is arrested inside a house, this does not give
officers the right to search the house. However, should the officers
discover evidence of a crime in plain view, then a search of the
house for other evidence of a crime is warranted.
Let's say John Doe was arrested in his home for an outstanding traffic
warrant. While in the house, the cops decide to have a look around.
In the bedroom closet they find a shotgun. In the refrigerator they
find what they believe to be illegal narcotics.
This would be an unreasonable search and the evidence found would be
dismissed and returned.

Dismissed perhaps, but returned? - I don't think so.

[richard]

Post by Bill Graham

Post by richard

Post by Brian

Post by s***@schenectady.net

Post by Brian
If a person is arrested on the street (at a traffic stop, for example), are
the police automatically permitted to search his house, or do they
need to get a court warrant to do so, which the court has the
discretion to grant or
not?

As a preliminary matter preliminarily, note that you have not
said that the arrest on the street was lawful. Therefore, even if
there was otherwise some reason to claim that there constitutionally
may be a search that is incident to a lawful arrest, one cannot tell
from what you say whether that predicate of lawfulness was present
for that person.
However, assuming that the on the street arrest was lawful,
that does not mean that the police are constitutionally allowed to
search the person's house if you mean by automatically that there
are not other facts necessitating or justifying the search beyond
the arrest itself.

That was what I was concerned with. Assuming the arrest outside the
house is "lawful," what you're saying is that that does not
automatically give the police authority to search the person's
house. But it seems to me that the police could always come up with
some excuse to justify a possible linkage of the arrest to what
might be in the person's house, or is this narrowly defined by law?
For example, if a person is found with illegal drugs, can the police
search his house looking for more drugs. I put "lawful" in quotes
because it seems to me that can also be interpreted by the police to
suit them. For example, it's legal to transport a gun unloaded and
packaged from a person's home to a target range. But if the police
find a gun in a person's car, how can he prove that he was on his
way to a target rang?. Could the police use that as an excuse to
arrest him and search his house? Theoretically it seems not to me,
but the police have arrested many people for trivial technical
violations of the gun laws in recenr years.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
In other words, it is constitutional to search a person
incident to a lawful even if warrantless search. But whether that
search lawfully beyond a search of the person depends on additional
factors.
The two most common such factors are what are called exigent
circumstances, for example that the police have a good fact based
faith reason to believe there is an emergency need for a further
search. An example might be a kidnapping or hostage situation. An
additional sometimes present reason is the so-called hot pursuit
situation, for example that person tries to escape from lawful
custody by running into his house with the police then following. A
third scenario, which is not constitutional but which is very
common, is the phony set up which, though phony, a judge might
pretend to believe if these issues were litigated, for example when
the police could and given the relevant facts should arrest on the
street but when they instead follow the person until he is entering
his house and then arrest him then search incident to that arrest.

Thanks. Yes, that was what I was concerned with also, since the
police often make up excuses for otherwise unconstitutional actions.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
But also note that the facts you post are incomplete in
connection with each of these alternatives since you do not say
among other things how far from the on the street arrest the
arrested person's house is. For example, whereas his house is in
Truro, Mass., was he arrested on the street in Boston, Mass., 120
miles away?

Note that when a person is arrested inside a house, this does not give
officers the right to search the house. However, should the officers
discover evidence of a crime in plain view, then a search of the
house for other evidence of a crime is warranted.
Let's say John Doe was arrested in his home for an outstanding traffic
warrant. While in the house, the cops decide to have a look around.
In the bedroom closet they find a shotgun. In the refrigerator they
find what they believe to be illegal narcotics.
This would be an unreasonable search and the evidence found would be
dismissed and returned.

Dismissed perhaps, but returned? - I don't think so.

why would the shotgun not be returned?
Unless the person is a convicted felon or otherwise restricted from haivng
one, there is no reason the court can keep it.

If the narcotics were found to be illegal, then the person charged for that
"crime", would have his attorney suppress the evidence based on the illegal
search.

What if those narcotics were rare and expensive medication needed for
someone's health? The court can not deny a person their required
medication.

[Bill Graham]

Post by richard

Post by Bill Graham

Post by richard

Post by Brian

Post by s***@schenectady.net

Post by Brian
If a person is arrested on the street (at a traffic stop, for example), are
the police automatically permitted to search his house, or do
they need to get a court warrant to do so, which the court has
the discretion to grant or
not?

As a preliminary matter preliminarily, note that you have not
said that the arrest on the street was lawful. Therefore, even
if there was otherwise some reason to claim that there
constitutionally may be a search that is incident to a lawful
arrest, one cannot tell from what you say whether that predicate
of lawfulness was present for that person.
However, assuming that the on the street arrest was lawful,
that does not mean that the police are constitutionally allowed
to search the person's house if you mean by automatically that
there are not other facts necessitating or justifying the search
beyond the arrest itself.

That was what I was concerned with. Assuming the arrest outside
the house is "lawful," what you're saying is that that does not
automatically give the police authority to search the person's
house. But it seems to me that the police could always come up with
some excuse to justify a possible linkage of the arrest to what
might be in the person's house, or is this narrowly defined by law?
For example, if a person is found with illegal drugs, can the
police search his house looking for more drugs. I put "lawful" in
quotes because it seems to me that can also be interpreted by the
police to suit them. For example, it's legal to transport a gun
unloaded and packaged from a person's home to a target range. But
if the police find a gun in a person's car, how can he prove that
he was on his way to a target rang?. Could the police use that as
an excuse to arrest him and search his house? Theoretically it
seems not to me, but the police have arrested many people for
trivial technical violations of the gun laws in recenr years.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
In other words, it is constitutional to search a person
incident to a lawful even if warrantless search. But whether that
search lawfully beyond a search of the person depends on
additional factors.
The two most common such factors are what are called exigent
circumstances, for example that the police have a good fact based
faith reason to believe there is an emergency need for a further
search. An example might be a kidnapping or hostage situation.
An additional sometimes present reason is the so-called hot
pursuit situation, for example that person tries to escape from
lawful custody by running into his house with the police then
following. A third scenario, which is not constitutional but
which is very common, is the phony set up which, though phony, a
judge might pretend to believe if these issues were litigated,
for example when the police could and given the relevant facts
should arrest on the street but when they instead follow the
person until he is entering his house and then arrest him then
search incident to that arrest.

Thanks. Yes, that was what I was concerned with also, since the
police often make up excuses for otherwise unconstitutional
actions.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
But also note that the facts you post are incomplete in
connection with each of these alternatives since you do not say
among other things how far from the on the street arrest the
arrested person's house is. For example, whereas his house is in
Truro, Mass., was he arrested on the street in Boston, Mass., 120
miles away?

Note that when a person is arrested inside a house, this does not
give officers the right to search the house. However, should the
officers discover evidence of a crime in plain view, then a search
of the house for other evidence of a crime is warranted.
Let's say John Doe was arrested in his home for an outstanding
traffic warrant. While in the house, the cops decide to have a look
around. In the bedroom closet they find a shotgun. In the
refrigerator they find what they believe to be illegal narcotics.
This would be an unreasonable search and the evidence found would be
dismissed and returned.

Dismissed perhaps, but returned? - I don't think so.

why would the shotgun not be returned?
Unless the person is a convicted felon or otherwise restricted from
haivng one, there is no reason the court can keep it.
If the narcotics were found to be illegal, then the person charged
for that "crime", would have his attorney suppress the evidence based
on the illegal search.
What if those narcotics were rare and expensive medication needed for
someone's health? The court can not deny a person their required
medication.In that case, the drugs are legal, and they would be returned.
but if the drugs are illegal, but discovered in a search for something
totally unrelated, then they would not be returned, even though they
wouldn't use their existence against you in court, since they were
discovered while searching for something else. And, I bet that any guns
found in such a search, if unregistered, or in any way not completely
legal, would be confiscated and not returned either. I know thise is true
in California which is totally run by liberals with a liberal attitude
toward the constitution..... (They hate it, and want to bury it.)

[richard]

Post by richard

Post by Bill Graham

Post by richard

Post by Brian

Post by s***@schenectady.net

Post by Brian
If a person is arrested on the street (at a traffic stop, for example), are
the police automatically permitted to search his house, or do
they need to get a court warrant to do so, which the court has
the discretion to grant or
not?

As a preliminary matter preliminarily, note that you have not
said that the arrest on the street was lawful. Therefore, even
if there was otherwise some reason to claim that there
constitutionally may be a search that is incident to a lawful
arrest, one cannot tell from what you say whether that predicate
of lawfulness was present for that person.
However, assuming that the on the street arrest was lawful,
that does not mean that the police are constitutionally allowed
to search the person's house if you mean by automatically that
there are not other facts necessitating or justifying the search
beyond the arrest itself.

That was what I was concerned with. Assuming the arrest outside
the house is "lawful," what you're saying is that that does not
automatically give the police authority to search the person's
house. But it seems to me that the police could always come up with
some excuse to justify a possible linkage of the arrest to what
might be in the person's house, or is this narrowly defined by law?
For example, if a person is found with illegal drugs, can the
police search his house looking for more drugs. I put "lawful" in
quotes because it seems to me that can also be interpreted by the
police to suit them. For example, it's legal to transport a gun
unloaded and packaged from a person's home to a target range. But
if the police find a gun in a person's car, how can he prove that
he was on his way to a target rang?. Could the police use that as
an excuse to arrest him and search his house? Theoretically it
seems not to me, but the police have arrested many people for
trivial technical violations of the gun laws in recenr years.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
In other words, it is constitutional to search a person
incident to a lawful even if warrantless search. But whether that
search lawfully beyond a search of the person depends on
additional factors.
The two most common such factors are what are called exigent
circumstances, for example that the police have a good fact based
faith reason to believe there is an emergency need for a further
search. An example might be a kidnapping or hostage situation.
An additional sometimes present reason is the so-called hot
pursuit situation, for example that person tries to escape from
lawful custody by running into his house with the police then
following. A third scenario, which is not constitutional but
which is very common, is the phony set up which, though phony, a
judge might pretend to believe if these issues were litigated,
for example when the police could and given the relevant facts
should arrest on the street but when they instead follow the
person until he is entering his house and then arrest him then
search incident to that arrest.

Thanks. Yes, that was what I was concerned with also, since the
police often make up excuses for otherwise unconstitutional actions.

Post by s***@schenectady.net
But also note that the facts you post are incomplete in
connection with each of these alternatives since you do not say
among other things how far from the on the street arrest the
arrested person's house is. For example, whereas his house is in
Truro, Mass., was he arrested on the street in Boston, Mass., 120
miles away?

Note that when a person is arrested inside a house, this does not
give officers the right to search the house. However, should the
officers discover evidence of a crime in plain view, then a search
of the house for other evidence of a crime is warranted.
Let's say John Doe was arrested in his home for an outstanding
traffic warrant. While in the house, the cops decide to have a look
around. In the bedroom closet they find a shotgun. In the
refrigerator they find what they believe to be illegal narcotics.
This would be an unreasonable search and the evidence found would be
dismissed and returned.

Dismissed perhaps, but returned? - I don't think so.

why would the shotgun not be returned?
Unless the person is a convicted felon or otherwise restricted from
haivng one, there is no reason the court can keep it.
If the narcotics were found to be illegal, then the person charged
for that "crime", would have his attorney suppress the evidence based
on the illegal search.
What if those narcotics were rare and expensive medication needed for
someone's health? The court can not deny a person their required
medication.

In that case, the drugs are legal, and they would be returned.

Post by richard
but if the drugs are illegal, but discovered in a search for something
totally unrelated, then they would not be returned, even though they
wouldn't use their existence against you in court, since they were
discovered while searching for something else. And, I bet that any guns
found in such a search, if unregistered, or in any way not completely
legal, would be confiscated and not returned either. I know thise is true
in California which is totally run by liberals with a liberal attitude
toward the constitution..... (They hate it, and want to bury it.)

Apparently, the california courts do not agree with your opinion.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1001359.html

The marijuana was found in a vehicle after a simple traffic stop.
IMO, the officer was wrong because he had to open a bag in order to find
the bottle containing the weed.
Since the driver was not physically placed under arrest, then the search of
the vehicle could only be limited to what was visible or what could be
construed as within arms reach of the driver.

Even though the court was dead set against it, they were bound by state law
to return the property.

[Evan Platt]

Post by richard
If the narcotics were found to be illegal, then the person charged for that
"crime", would have his attorney suppress the evidence based on the illegal
search.
What if those narcotics were rare and expensive medication needed for
someone's health? The court can not deny a person their required
medication.

Then those narcotics would not be illegal, would they?

[Kent Wills]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:19:09 -0500, richard <***@newsguy.com>
wrote:

[...]

Post by richard
Let's say John Doe was arrested in his home for an outstanding traffic
warrant. While in the house, the cops decide to have a look around. In the
bedroom closet they find a shotgun. In the refrigerator they find what they
believe to be illegal narcotics.
This would be an unreasonable search and the evidence found would be
dismissed and returned.

Do you honestly think the illegal narcotics you mention in your
hypothetical would be returned?
Really?

[Evan Platt]

Post by Kent Wills
Do you honestly think the illegal narcotics you mention in your
hypothetical would be returned?
Really?

In bullis's fantasy world, yes. Because the person NEEDS them.

[Kent Wills]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:48:11 -0800, Evan Platt

Post by Evan Platt

Post by Kent Wills
Do you honestly think the illegal narcotics you mention in your
hypothetical would be returned?
Really?

In bullis's fantasy world, yes. Because the person NEEDS them.

I'm sure Richard would cite Terry V. Ohio. It seems to be the
only case of which he has any knowledge (even though he's been 100%
wrong regarding what the ruling actually says).

[Bill Graham]

Post by Evan Platt

Post by Kent Wills
Do you honestly think the illegal narcotics you mention in your
hypothetical would be returned?
Really?

In bullis's fantasy world, yes. Because the person NEEDS them.

In my, "fantacy world" yes, because it isn't the state's business why I have
them and because they were discovered by an illegal search. To reward anyone
in any way through an unconstitutional action is to promote tyranny. But we
do, and you young people may well see the effect of it before you die.

[Gordon Burditt]

Post by richard
Let's say John Doe was arrested in his home for an outstanding traffic
warrant. While in the house, the cops decide to have a look around. In the
bedroom closet they find a shotgun. In the refrigerator they find what they
believe to be illegal narcotics.
This would be an unreasonable search and the evidence found would be
dismissed and returned.

Wouldn't this have unfortunate consequences for John if the cops are a little
smart and John Doe was stupid and without a lawyer at the moment?

The evidence found is dismissed.
The cops ask John to sign a receipt for the shotgun and the drugs.
John signs the receipt.
The cops immediately re-arrest John, using the receipt as evidence
that he is claiming the drugs are his.

[Naughtius]

Post by Gordon Burditt

Post by richard
Let's say John Doe was arrested in his home for an outstanding traffic
warrant. While in the house, the cops decide to have a look around. In the
bedroom closet they find a shotgun. In the refrigerator they find what they
believe to be illegal narcotics.
This would be an unreasonable search and the evidence found would be
dismissed and returned.

Wouldn't this have unfortunate consequences for John if the cops are a little
smart and John Doe was stupid and without a lawyer at the moment?
The evidence found is dismissed.
The cops ask John to sign a receipt for the shotgun and the drugs.
John signs the receipt.
The cops immediately re-arrest John, using the receipt as evidence
that he is claiming the drugs are his.

No... It DOESN'T Work Like That...

IF The SAPs UNlawfully Seize Drugs - CONTRABAND - and The Court
"RULES" - NOT "Dismisses" - That The Seizure was UNlawful - "Fruit Of
The Poisoned Tree" - The Result is that "The People" MAY NOT Introduce
that UNlawfully Seized Evidence at Trial... IF There is NO OTHER
Evidence that could prove The Complaint "Beyond A Reasonable
Doubt",then The Suck-Ass DA is FORCED To "Dismiss" The Complaint; The
UNlawfully Searched/Arrested Defendant goes free; The SAPs RETAIN [And
Allegedly DESTROY] The Illegal CONTRABAND...

BOTTOM LINE: One DOES NOT Retrieve "Contraband" No Matter that it
was UNlawfully Seized...

Naughtius "ALWAYS REMEMBER, Kids: KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!" Maximus

[Bill Graham]

Post by Gordon Burditt

Post by richard
Let's say John Doe was arrested in his home for an outstanding
traffic warrant. While in the house, the cops decide to have a look
around. In the bedroom closet they find a shotgun. In the
refrigerator they find what they believe to be illegal narcotics.
This would be an unreasonable search and the evidence found would be
dismissed and returned.

Wouldn't this have unfortunate consequences for John if the cops are
a little smart and John Doe was stupid and without a lawyer at the
moment?
The evidence found is dismissed.
The cops ask John to sign a receipt for the shotgun and the drugs.
John signs the receipt.
The cops immediately re-arrest John, using the receipt as evidence
that he is claiming the drugs are his.

Yes. If you are John, you should have said (and signed) nothing except a
request for a lawyer. And, your lawyer should immediately tell you to say
nothing and sign nothing. Its a pity that it has come to this, but the
police and the local courts have brought it on themselves through their
disreguard of the US Constitution.

[s***@schenectady.net]

Assuming the arrest outside the house ia
"lawful," ... that does not automatically give the
police authority to search the person's house(?)

Correct.

But it seems to me that the police could always come up
with some excuse to justify a possible linkage of the
the arrest to what might be in the person's house, or is
this narrowly defined by law?

As I suggested earlier, this question posed this way intermixes
analysis including about what sometimes is provable by a defendant
with police perjurmony-testilying which a judge might believe or at
least pretend to believe.
But, Yes - intellectually in terms of what principles of law
should apply, the extent of a police officer's prerogative to conduct
a constitutional search incident to an arrest is comparatively
narrowly defined.

For example, if a person is found with illegal drugs, can
the police search his house looking for more drugs.

No, if you mean by can what would be constitutional.

Is some variation of the legitimate hot pursuit or other exigent
circumstances situations to which I referred earlier present or not?
If not, it would not be lawful for the police even to enter the
arrestee's house without a search warrant unless the arrestee or, if
relevant, someone else in an ownership or similar relationship with
the arrestee and property who had the authority to do so invited them
inside.

And even if one assumes that it would be lawful including not
unconstitutional for the police to enter the premises, it presumably
would still be important if they do so not under color of the
authority provided by a search warrant to deal with whether their
search, if one may call it that, is or is not limited to what is
immediately apparent or otherwise in plain view.

If you are serious about wanting to learn more, rather than post
somewhat repetitive queries that suggest you are in something of a
trying to reinvent the wheel mode, you should find and read the U.S.
supreme court majority and dissenting opinions in Kentucky v. King,
131 S.Ct. 1849, decided last spring (2011), and for a fuller
understanding also find and read the earlier decisions dealing with
these issues that are cited and discussed by the majority and dissent
in that case.

[Bill Graham]

Post by s***@schenectady.net

Assuming the arrest outside the house ia
"lawful," ... that does not automatically give the
police authority to search the person's house(?)

Correct.

But it seems to me that the police could always come up
with some excuse to justify a possible linkage of the
the arrest to what might be in the person's house, or is
this narrowly defined by law?

As I suggested earlier, this question posed this way intermixes
analysis including about what sometimes is provable by a defendant
with police perjurmony-testilying which a judge might believe or at
least pretend to believe.
But, Yes - intellectually in terms of what principles of law
should apply, the extent of a police officer's prerogative to conduct
a constitutional search incident to an arrest is comparatively
narrowly defined.

For example, if a person is found with illegal drugs, can
the police search his house looking for more drugs.

No, if you mean by can what would be constitutional.
Is some variation of the legitimate hot pursuit or other exigent
circumstances situations to which I referred earlier present or not?
If not, it would not be lawful for the police even to enter the
arrestee's house without a search warrant unless the arrestee or, if
relevant, someone else in an ownership or similar relationship with
the arrestee and property who had the authority to do so invited them
inside.
And even if one assumes that it would be lawful including not
unconstitutional for the police to enter the premises, it presumably
would still be important if they do so not under color of the
authority provided by a search warrant to deal with whether their
search, if one may call it that, is or is not limited to what is
immediately apparent or otherwise in plain view.
If you are serious about wanting to learn more, rather than post
somewhat repetitive queries that suggest you are in something of a
trying to reinvent the wheel mode, you should find and read the U.S.
supreme court majority and dissenting opinions in Kentucky v. King,
131 S.Ct. 1849, decided last spring (2011), and for a fuller
understanding also find and read the earlier decisions dealing with
these issues that are cited and discussed by the majority and dissent
in that case.

I reguard to the above, can you do such searches on line, or do you have to
go to some law library and be a member, and/or pay a fee to enter there?

[s***@schenectady.net]

Post by Bill Graham
.....

Post by s***@schenectady.net
If you are serious about wanting to learn more, rather than post
somewhat repetitive queries that suggest you are in something of a
trying to reinvent the wheel mode, you should find and read the U.S.
supreme court majority and dissenting opinions in Kentucky v. King,
131 S.Ct. 1849, decided last spring (2011), and for a fuller
understanding also find and read the earlier decisions dealing with
these issues that are cited and discussed by the majority and dissent
in that case.

I reguard to the above, can you do such searches on line, or do you have to
go to some law library and be a member, and/or pay a fee to enter there?

Maybe you could try the following hardly difficult to conceive of
experiment. With or without quotation marks, type "131 S.Ct. 1849"
or "Kentucky v. King" into the google.com or yahoo.com or
duckduckgo.com or bing.com search field then see and if you want
follow up on what happens.

[Bill Graham]

Post by s***@schenectady.net

Post by Bill Graham
.....

Post by s***@schenectady.net
If you are serious about wanting to learn more, rather than post
somewhat repetitive queries that suggest you are in something of a
trying to reinvent the wheel mode, you should find and read the U.S.
supreme court majority and dissenting opinions in Kentucky v. King,
131 S.Ct. 1849, decided last spring (2011), and for a fuller
understanding also find and read the earlier decisions dealing with
these issues that are cited and discussed by the majority and
dissent in that case.

I reguard to the above, can you do such searches on line, or do you
have to go to some law library and be a member, and/or pay a fee to
enter there?

Maybe you could try the following hardly difficult to conceive of
experiment. With or without quotation marks, type "131 S.Ct. 1849"
or "Kentucky v. King" into the google.com or yahoo.com or
duckduckgo.com or bing.com search field then see and if you want
follow up on what happens.

What a wonderful tool. Had I had a tool like this when I went to college, I
could have stayed home at my computer and gotten a complete edcation without
ever leaving my house or attending a day in class. With a tool like this,
ignorance is no longer an excuse for anything, and "college campuses" are
just a playground for children who have nothing better to do.

[Veritas]

Post by s***@schenectady.net

Assuming the arrest outside the house ia
"lawful," ... that does not automatically give the
police authority to search the person's house(?)

Correct.

But it seems to me that the police could always come up
with some excuse to justify a possible linkage of the
the arrest to what might be in the person's house, or is
this narrowly defined by law?

As I suggested earlier, this question posed this way intermixes
analysis including about what sometimes is provable by a defendant
with police perjurmony-testilying which a judge might believe or at
least pretend to believe.
But, Yes - intellectually in terms of what principles of law
should apply, the extent of a police officer's prerogative to conduct
a constitutional search incident to an arrest is comparatively
narrowly defined.

As Alan Dershowitz wrote among
Unwritten rules that govern justice in America
Rule IV: Almost all police lie about whether they violated the
Constitution in order to get a conviction.
Rule V: Almost all prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys are
aware of Rule IV.
Rule VIII: Most trial judges pretend to believe police officers who
they know are lying.
-- Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor, _The Best Defense_

[richard]

Post by Brian
If a person is arrested on the street (at a traffic stop, for example), are
the police automatically permitted to search his house, or do they need to
get a court warrant to do so, which the court has the discretion to grant or
not?

No. To sarch the person's home or vehicle would require the issuance of a
search warrant.
Just because the person was arrested is not carte blanch rights to search
his posessions.

[Naughtius]

Post by Brian
If a person is arrested on the street (at a traffic stop, for example), are
the police automatically permitted to search his house

Well... NotWithStanding some HeretoFore UNwritten Double-Secret
Provision of Das Patrioten Akt, Suck-Ass PIGS [DO NOT OBTAIN] "Legal
Authority" to search The Traffic Detainee's House... Or Storage
Shed... Or Safe Deposit Box... Or Marina'ed Boat... Ad Nauseam...

Likewise, EVEN IF The UNfortunate Arrestee is Arrested IN His/Her
House, and AGAIN, NotWithStanding Double-Secret Patrioten Akt
Provisions, SAPs [DO NOT OBTAIN] "Legal Authority" On a SIMPLE ARREST,
To Search His/Her Dwelling... [THE IMMEDIATE {Arms-Length} AREA -
Which Would INCLUDE "Standing At an OPEN Doorway and ""SEARCHING For
Contraband IN PLAIN SIGHT"" Excepted"]

, or do they need to

Post by Brian
get a court warrant to do so,

TRICKING [Look, Buddy... I Know How It Is... I Wanna HELP Y'out
here... BUT I CAN'T HELP Ya If Y'don't TALK T'me AND Let Me See With
MY OWN TWO EYES that yer NOT Hiding Anything In Your House... Y'got
Nuthin' T'HIDE, DO YA???] an Arrestee Into GRANTING SAPs "Legal
Authority" To Search a Place W/O Benefit of Lawful Warrant... Obtained
Upon OATH & PROBABLE CAUSE... Will Suffice Anytime... And USUALLY
DOES...

which the court has the discretion to grant or

Post by Brian
not?

HMMMmmmm... I WONDER How Many Times a Suck-Ass Judge has TURNED
DOWN a Suck-Ass PIG's Application For Warrant...

Naughtius "No WARRANT - No WASHEE" Maximus