44

Wooden made two arguments to suppress the evidence, first that he had not consented to the officer entering his house (the officer and the court disagreed) and the second that even if the officer's entry had been legitimate, the evidence wasn't legitimate because of the Fourth Amendment: Much of Wooden’s challenge turns on the fact that Mason was neither in ...


37

Police may not arrest you without probable cause, and the existence of probable cause is evaluated “at the moment of the arrest.” Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (1964). Therefore, police may not “look for after-the-fact justifications for [seizures] that would otherwise be impermissible.” United States v. Hughes, 606 F.3d 311, 316 (6th Cir. 2010). In ...


35

You can file a federal criminal complaint under 18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, or (most commonly) a civil claim under 42 USC 1983 for the violation of your civil rights. There are usually state laws, from some form of harassment (usually a summary offense) to misdemeanors like the Official Oppression we have in Pennsylvania. Note ...


35

First off, you cannot booby trap your property, period. It is both illegal and tortious. But, as you noted, there are already questions/answers that deal with this issue. Sure enough, if the police get a no-knock search warrant, that in and of itself is the Court order allowing entry by any means necessary. When the officers, there by right of law, breach ...


35

If a plain-clothes officer entered your house without your permission or a warrant, then it would indeed run afoul of the 4th Amendment (and the same is true for a uniformed officer.) But essentially no search is considered 'unreasonable' if you consent to it without coercion/duress. Similarly, courts have consistently held that anything seen by an officer &...


26

In general, people have less expectation of privacy in cars than in their homes. To challenge a search and/or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a person must have standing - the right to sue (that is, you must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place where the search happened; if you didn't, no standing - can't claim your privacy was ...


24

This is not a simple question. There are hundreds of page treatises on consent - explicit, implied, obtained by trickery, revoked, coerced by show, coerced by intimidation. If it ever was just a he said (s)he said situation, that certainly does not mean that the testimony of those two individuals are all that's considered to determine (1) that the ...


23

They must comply with your restrictions, via the principle that consent can be withdrawn. One relevant Supreme Court case is Walter v. US 447 US 649, which declares that When an official search is properly authorized—whether by consent or by the issuance of a valid warrant—the scope of the search is limited by the terms of its ...


21

In the United States, the general way to challenge violations of your constitutional rights is a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This broad statute allows anyone injured by such a violation to obtain damages and an injunction against future conduct. Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit; a plaintiff must show that the officers' ...


20

You are correct. A judge may only issue a warrant when it is supported by an affidavit, in which the officer seeking the warrant swears under oath to the facts supporting the warrant. Lying on the affidavit would constitute perjury. But judges very frequently just rubber-stamp the warrants without meaningfully reviewing the affidavits, so the primary form of ...


18

Nothing below is legal advice. I am not a lawyer. If law enforcement is actually requesting an encryption key, talk to a real lawyer. To answer your first question, the answer is "the government probably can't demand the password, but might be able to demand the data." Some courts have ruled that the Fifth Amendment can prevent courts from forcing someone ...


15

It depends on the meaning of "can." Do you mean to ask whether it is lawful, or whether it is possible for police to make such an arrest, or whether it is possible for such an arrest to lead to a successful prosecution? As Rock Ape correctly points out in another answer, such an arrest is unlawful. Nonetheless, police make arrests without ...


13

The government cannot seize property because a person residing at that property has a tax debt: the debtor has to have a legal interest in the property, which you say you don't have. The government can seize property under the practice of civil forfeiture, which is a legal dispute between law enforcement and property – the simplest way to put it is that the ...


12

Current law in the United States on this subject is unsettled. In re Boucher (2009): The United States District Court for the District of Vermont held that if the contents of the encrypted files are generally known to the government, then revealing the encryption key is not self-incrimination, and Fifth Amendment protections do not apply. United States v. ...


12

Evidence obtained under a warrant supported by a falsely-sworn affidavit can be challenged as inadmissible, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, if the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if ...


11

There are two separate questions here, it seems to me. First: are law enforcement officers required to respect your house rules and avoid making a mess? At least in the United States, the answer is unequivocally no. If the only "damage" suffered is that you need to sweep the floor, or put your clothes back in drawers, that's not the police's problem. You ...


10

The answer is somewhat similar to the "corollary" question, in that this wouldn't be the only information taken into account at a motion to suppress and one would need know why the officer requested (in your scenario demanded) to search you in the first place. There are scenarios whereby he could search you without benefit of a warrant. Was he chasing you ...


10

...the police decide to press on with their search and an officer is injured or killed, can I be held criminally or civilly liable for that casualty? I didn't read through all of your links so I'll just say - generally speaking you cannot use deadly force to protect unoccupied property, the law finds it neither justified nor reasonable. Katko v. Briney, ...


10

It most likely can be used (there is no "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine). Drawing on this analysis (I can't locate Nytt juridiskt arkiv 1986 online). (Rättegångsbalken, SFS 1942:740) Chapter 35 Section 1 (35 Kap.) allows free "sifting, submission, evaluation" of evidence. Evidence can be rejected as insignificant. Specifically (following the analysis ...


9

Whom does the judge believe? The judge believes the more credible witness. Weight of witness testimony is all about credibility. "There is no law on judging credibility. Judges and jurors receive guidelines and elementary observations in the form of stock instructions but are essentially free to decide for themselves." (Judging Credibility, by John Kane) ...


9

Civil forfeiture typically pits the government against property, not the government against an individual, and in the US (also anywhere else), only people have rights: property has no rights. The first relevant instance to reach the Supreme Court was an early case, The Palmyra (25 US 1), where a ship was confiscated because it had been used in privateering ...


8

As has already been said, as far as the vehicle registration, the officer likely already knows who the vehicle is registered to and whether it's expired or not before he walks up to your car, or at the least, he can easily find that information out. The proof of insurance is a different matter. The officer will need to see it to know if you have insurance ...


8

Does the person being searched have the right to demand the computer be turned off before it is taken on the grounds that the warrant is only for the computer, not for the activity he is currently involved in? No. A warrant will often specify that both information (which they have a reasonable suspicion is on the computer) and the computer itself (as ...


8

I'm not aware of case law on point, other than Riley, which you mention (which doesn't mean that there isn't any - I'm not a specialist in this area). But, I think that the answer would be that you do have an expectation of privacy because the Riley holding that there was an expectation of privacy in a smart phone didn't really hinge in any meaningful way ...


8

Keep in mind that a warrant doesn't require proof that you stole the property or have the property. Instead, the warrant is just authorization to look for that proof. The standard for securing a warrant is probable cause, which is a much lower bar to clear than people seem to think. It just requires that given everything the officer knows, there's a "...


8

There is commonly a law like RCW 69.50.309 which says that A person to whom or for whose use any controlled substance has been prescribed, sold, or dispensed by a practitioner, and the owner of any animal for which such controlled substance has been prescribed, sold, or dispensed may lawfully possess it only in the container in which it was ...


8

Yes and No See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967): What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. The glass has clearly been "knowingly exposed" ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible